EVIDENCE LAW — Burden of Proof — Fundamental Rights Enforcement — Burden on Applicant to Prove Infringement
Ratio Decidendi
Per Muhammad, JSC, in Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. & Anor (2009) NLC-123-336-2002(SC) at pp. 17; Paras A–C:
"It is trite law that he who asserts must prove. ... It would thus amount to re-writing the law, if, as learned counsel for the appellant would want us to believe, that: 'If a person alleges that he was arrested and detained, the burden of proving the legality of both the arrest and detention rests squarely on the Respondents'. This, to say the least, is putting the law (up-side down) in a reversed position."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the applicant in a fundamental rights enforcement claim bears the burden of proving the alleged infringement. The burden does not shift to the respondent to prove the legality of the arrest. The principle applies in fundamental rights enforcement proceedings. It ensures that the applicant must establish their case. The principle reflects the general rule that he who asserts must prove. It prevents applicants from shifting the burden. The court must require the applicant to prove the infringement. The principle provides guidance on the burden of proof in fundamental rights claims.