LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Burden of Proof – Failure to Adduce Evidence in Support of Pleaded Case – Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The 1st appellant's case was simply that the property was offered to her by 2nd appellant; nothing more. It was not that Exhibit C was a forgery, or was obtained by fraud. Trial Judge imported fraud into the case. The trial court never explained why Exhibit C was unreliable. There was no evidence before the trial Court to indicate why the deed of conveyance Exhibit C was unreliable.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Belgore, JSC, in Obulor & Anor v. Oboro (2001) NLC-1321997(SC) at p. 4; Paras A–B.
"The 1st appellant's case was simply that the property was offered to her by 2nd appellant; nothing more. It was not that Exhibit C was a forgery, or was obtained by fraud. Trial Judge imported fraud into the case. The trial court never explained why Exhibit C was unreliable. There was no evidence before the trial Court to indicate why the deed of conveyance Exhibit C was unreliable."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party who does not plead fraud or forgery cannot have the court import fraud into the case. The court cannot base its decision on unpleaded allegations. If a deed of conveyance is not challenged as fraudulent or forged, the court cannot declare it unreliable without evidence. The trial court must explain its reasons for rejecting documentary evidence. Absence of evidence challenging a document’s validity means the document should be accepted. The principle prevents courts from inventing defects not raised by parties. The burden is on the party attacking a document to prove its invalidity. The court cannot speculate. The decision must be based on evidence, not judicial intuition.
