LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Burden of Proof — Misdirection as to Onus — Effect on Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A misdirection as to the onus of proof is a very serious matter that can affect witness credibility and lead to a miscarriage of justice; once it is found that the onus was cast on the wrong party, it is reasonably fair to assume a likelihood of miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Oputa, JSC (as adopted by Uwaifo, JSC), in Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.19) 799 at p. 347, 349; cited in Okafor v. Ezenwa (2002) NLC-601996(SC) at p. 11; Paras C–E.
"A misdirection as to the onus of proof is thus a very serious matter which can affect the credibility of witnesses. It can also lead to a miscarriage of justice. Once it is found that there had been misapprehension as to the onus of proof and a misdirection casting such onus on the wrong party, I think it will be reasonably fair to assume the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A misdirection on the burden of proof is serious. It can affect the court’s assessment of witness credibility. It may lead to a miscarriage of justice. If the court casts the burden on the wrong party, the appellate court will assume a likelihood of miscarriage. The principle ensures that the correct party bears the burden. The appellant need not prove actual prejudice; the misdirection itself creates a presumption of prejudice. The rule applies to both civil and criminal cases. The appellate court will set aside the decision if the misdirection affected the outcome. The court must correctly identify who bears the burden.
