EVIDENCE LAW — Burden of Proof — Criminal Flavour in Civil Proceedings — Who Bears Burden to Prove Allegation of Fraud Has Criminal Code Connotation
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Imonikhe v. Unity Bank Plc (2011) NLC-123-68-2003(SC) at p. 15; Paras B—D:
"In the instant case, it is the appellant who asserted the affirmative or positive and therefore has the burden of proving same particularly as the respondent denied what was pleaded. … the lower court was right in holding that the burden of proof lies on appellant to prove the fact that the fraud in issue has criminal code flavour or as contemplated therein, which appellant failed to discharge."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that in civil proceedings, the party asserting that fraud has a criminal code connotation bears the burden of proving it, especially where the allegation is denied. The principle applies in civil cases involving fraud. It ensures that the party asserting criminality proves it. The principle reflects the general rule of burden of proof. It prevents unsubstantiated claims of criminal fraud. The court must require proof. The principle provides guidance on burden of proof in civil fraud cases.