LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Burden of Proof — Effect of Misplacing Onus of Proof
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Looking at the judgment in totality, it will be observed that the trial Judge misconceived the placing of the evidential burden of proof. He appeared to labour under the grave error that the burden of proving that they were entitled to the Diokwaraship was on the appellants. Where a court misplaces the onus of proof on the wrong party thus erroneously shifting the burden placed by law, the judgment ought to be set aside.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Iheanacho & Ors v. Chigere & Ors (2004) NLC-1512000(SC) at p. 13; Paras A–C.
"Looking at the judgment in totality, it will be observed that the trial Judge misconceived the placing of the evidential burden of proof. He appeared to labour under the grave error that the burden of proving that they were entitled to the Diokwaraship was on the appellants. See the case of Akinkunmi v. Sadiq (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt.516) 277 at page 291 where it was held that where a court misplaces the onus of proof on the wrong party thus erroneously shifting the burden placed by law under section 136 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 22, Laws of the Federation, then the judgment ought to be set aside."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Misplacing the onus of proof on the wrong party is a grave error. Where a court erroneously shifts the burden placed by law, the judgment ought to be set aside. The principle applies to all civil proceedings. The court must correctly identify which party bears the burden. The rule protects parties from being required to prove negative or disprove the opponent’s case. The appellate court will intervene to correct such error.