LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CUSTOMARY LAW — Customary Courts — Standard of Proof — Expression “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” in Civil Cases
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is only apposite in criminal prosecutions; in civil cases, the standard is preponderance of evidence, but its use by a Customary Court should not be taken literally if the context shows the court meant the plaintiff proved his case to the hilt.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC, in Odofin & Anor v. Oni (2001) NLC-1191995(SC) at p. 15; Paras C–E.
"It is certainly not the law, if not bizarre, to insist or expect a plaintiff in a civil case 'to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.' On the contrary, it is the law that a plaintiff in any civil case, in order to succeed must establish his case on preponderance of evidence, because the phrase 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' is only apposite in criminal prosecutions. Obviously, when it is borne in mind that the trial Customary Court was satisfied that the appellants proved their civil claim 'beyond reasonable doubt' then a dispassionate observer who also heard the same Customary Court state that the respondents even failed to prove ownership of the land in dispute would appreciate, having regard to the penchant for our metaphoric mode of expression, that it seemed clear that the Customary Court was duly making a far reaching remark that the respondents had no answer to the appellants' case who had established their case to the hilt i.e. beyond reasonable doubt."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The criminal standard “beyond reasonable doubt” does not apply in civil cases; the standard is preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. However, when a Customary Court uses the phrase, appellate courts should not take it literally if the context shows the court meant the plaintiff proved the case convincingly. Customary Courts may use metaphoric expressions. The appellate court examines the substance of the decision. If the evidence clearly supports the plaintiff, the use of the phrase is not fatal. The principle prevents technical reversal of Customary Court decisions based on inappropriate terminology. The court looks at whether the plaintiff actually proved the case on the balance of probabilities.