EVIDENCE LAW — Standard of Proof — Civil Claims with Incidental Criminal Allegations — Test for Application of Criminal Standard
Ratio Decidendi
Per Adekeye, JSC, in ASESA v. Ekwenem (2009) NLC-123-174-2002(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–C:
"Where a Plaintiff makes an allegation of crime in his pleadings but nevertheless can succeed in his claim without proving the crime, it cannot be said that the commission of the crime was a fact directly in issue. Furthermore, where in a civil claim, a person can succeed without proving criminal motive, the motive cannot be regarded as a fact in issue in order to apply the provision of section 138(1) of the Evidence Act."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the criminal standard of proof does not apply where criminal allegations are incidental and not essential to success. If a plaintiff can succeed without proving the crime, the crime is not directly in issue. The principle applies where criminal motive is alleged but not essential. It ensures that the higher standard is not applied unnecessarily. The principle reflects the distinction between direct and incidental issues. It prevents parties from being unduly burdened. The court must determine if the allegation is foundational. The principle provides guidance on when the criminal standard applies.