CORAM
OKAY ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
KATE ENTERPRISES LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent claimed from the respondent monies outstanding on goods it had supplied to it. The appellants got judgment at the trial court on the ground that the respondents had not proved their case as onus of proof lay on them.
HELD
The court held that the trial judge failed to apply the correct approach on the issue of burden of proof on the pleadings and failed to consider the totality of the evidence before him in order to determine which evidence of the parties that has weight and which has no weight at all.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial Judge considered the evidence as a whole or weighed the totality of the evidences Whether the evidence of pw1 is hear say
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF
“The burden of proof of the case must be related to issues raised in the pleadings and the strength of the totality of evidence adduced by the contesting parties at the trial. There is no absolute standard. The degree of probability depends on the subject matter and varies from case to case, and the burden of the issues is divided, each party having one or more cast upon him and is fixed either on the substantive law or on the pleadings.” COKER JSC.
CASES CITED
1. Nigerian Maritime Services Ltd. v. Alhaji Bello Afolabi (1978) 2 S.C. 79;
2. A.R. Mogaji & Ors. v. Odofin (1978) 4 S.C. 91 p.93.
3. Daniel Fadina & Anor. v. F. Gbadebo (1978) 3 S.C.219 pp. 248-9
4. Ete Etowa Enang & Ors. v. Fidelis Ihor Adu (1981) 11 S.C. 25,
5. K. Akpene v. Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd. (1977) 1 S.C. 47
6.United Marketing Co. Ltd. v. Kura (1963) 1 W.L.R. 523.
7.Salau Olukade v. Alade (1976) 1 All N.LR.67.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Evidence Act