LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CUSTOMARY LAW — Customary Courts — Burden of Proof — Reference to Defendant’s Failure to Prove Ownership
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A statement by a Customary Court that "defendants failed to prove ownership" does not shift the burden of proof; it means the defendant failed to rebut the strong case proved by the plaintiff.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC and Ogundare, JSC, in Odofin & Anor v. Oni (2001) NLC-1191995(SC) at pp. 17, 23; Paras B–C, C–D.
"The strictures of the lower court as regard the offending statement of the trial Customary Court that the 'defendants failed to prove ownership of the land in dispute' relate to the style of writing of judgment by a lay panel but does not offend the substances of the decision reached by the lay trial Customary Court nor did that court commit any serious error of procedure, even if it is not bound by strict rules of the Evidence Act. What the trial court seemed to be saying was that the defendant had failed to rebut the strong case proved in evidence by the plaintiffs. That, in my respectful view, is not shifting of burden of proof to the defendants."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When a Customary Court states that the defendant failed to prove ownership, it does not necessarily shift the burden of proof. The court likely means the defendant failed to rebut the strong case proved by the plaintiff. The burden remains on the plaintiff to prove their case. The expression reflects the style of writing of lay judges. Appellate courts should interpret such statements in context. The principle prevents technical reversal based on loose language. The substance of the decision—whether the plaintiff proved their case—is what matters. The court examines the totality of the judgment. The defendant’s failure to rebut a strong case is not the same as shifting the burden.