Standard
of Proof
Standard
of proof is the legal requirement of the extent of the excess between the
parties’ evidence. Standard of proof is the extent by which the weight or
quality of evidence adduced by a party exceeds that of the opponent in order
for the former to discharge the burden of proof placed on him. For example, if
the plaintiff is alleging negligence, the standard of proof is the quantum of
his evidence in excess to that of the defendant. This excess is the standard of
proof which must out-weigh that of the other party on the part of the person on
whom the onus of proof lies.
This
naturally raises the question as to the extent by which the weight or quality
of evidence adduced by him must exceed that of the opponent in order for him to
discharge that obligation. In other words, what standard or quantum of proof
can qualify the party for a favourable verdict or success in litigation? Yet
still, what is the standard of quantum of proof required of a party who has the
burden of proof?
There
are broadly speaking two different standards, one for civil the other for
criminal cases. The criminal standard of proof applies to criminal trials as
such as well as to the proof of allegation of crime as an issue in a civil
case. Also, in the exceptional cases where the burden of proof of an issue lies
on the accused, the standard required of him for the discharge of that burden
is the civil one. Unless the requisite standard stipulated for each particular
type of case is attained, the burden remains undischarged. The various cases
have to be considered now.
2.
Standard
of Proof in Civil Cases
The
standard of proof required in civil cases is that the party on whom the burden
of proof on the pleadings lies must establish a preponderance of evidence or balance
of probabilities in his favour. This means that he has to persuade the
court that his version of the facts is more probable than that of his opponent.
His case must be such that, the court, after weighing the evidence of both
parties, must find a preponderance of evidence in his favour.
In
Mogaji & Ors., v Odofin & Ors.,
(1978) 4 SC 91, the Supreme Court indicated how the decision as where the
balance of probabilities lies can be reached as follows: the judge should first
of all put the totality of the testimony adduced by the plaintiff on one side
of the scale and that of the defendant on the other side and weigh them
together. He will then see which is heavier not by the number of witnesses
called by each party, but the quality or the probative value of the testimony
of those witnesses. In determining which is heavier, the judge will naturally
have regard to whether the evidence is admissible, relevant, credible,
conclusive and more probable than that given by the other party. He should not
consider the evidence adduced by one of the parties and make finding of fact in
it before considering the evidence adduced by the other party.
Proof
by preponderance of evidence, therefore, simply means that the evidence adduced
by the plaintiff should be put on a side of an imaginary scale and the evidence
adduced by the defendant put on the other side of that scale and weighed
together to see which side preponderates. The degree of preponderance of
evidence may be less where a civil case is uncontested.
There
are indeed within the standard of proof in civil cases degrees of probability.
The more serious an allegation is, the higher will be the required degree of
proof, although, it will not reach ‘the criminal standard’. Thus, a civil court
when considering a matter of fraud will require a high degree of probability
than that which it would require when asking if negligence is established. The
gravity of the issue is part of the circumstances which the court must take
into consideration in reaching its decision on the question whether or not the
standard of proof has been attained.
In
the civil case where special damages are claimed, such damages must be
‘strictly proof’. The term ‘strict proof’ does not however mean ‘unusual
proof’. It means no more than that the evidence must show the same
particularity as is necessary for its pleading. It should therefore normally
consist of evidence of particular losses which are exactly known or accurately
measured before trial.
This
implies that a plaintiff who has the advantage of being able to base his claim
upon a precise calculation must give the defendant access to the facts which
made such calculations possible. Strict proof of special damages means no more
than proof as would readily render itself to qualification or assessment.
©Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016. (All Rights Reserved) Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
©Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016. (All Rights Reserved) Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.