Ratio Decidendi

Per Muhammad, JSC, in Hamza v. Kure (2010) NLC-123-227-2001(SC) at p. 11, para. E – p. 12, para. A:

"The burden of proof in negligence is on the plaintiff and the onus, is as in all other civil matters which is not static, does not shift on to the defendant until the plaintiff proves defendant's negligence. What the plaintiff must prove in this case are: [i] that the defendant owes him a duty of care, [ii] that there is a breach of that duty and [iii] an injury to the plaintiff has occurred between which and the breach of duty a casual connection must be established."
View Judgment →

Explanation / Scope

This principle establishes that in negligence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove duty of care, breach of that duty, and injury caused by the breach with a causal connection. The burden does not shift to the defendant until the plaintiff proves negligence. The principle applies in negligence claims. It ensures that the plaintiff proves all elements. The principle reflects the burden of proof in civil cases. It prevents shifting the burden prematurely. The court must require proof of each element. The principle provides guidance on proving negligence.

Cases Applying This Principle

Rabiu Hamza v. Peter Kure