BAGUDU V BALKISU [2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 317 S.C
ON BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER ISLAMIC LAW
The general principle in Islamic law which is also applicable to common law is that it is the duty of the plaintiff in a civil claim to adduce evidence in support of his claim. Put differently, under Islamic law, the burden of proof is on the person who asserts. There is no provision for a defendant to give evidence. In this case, the onus of proof was on the appellant to lead evidence in support of his assertion that the respondents (apart from the 11th respondent) were not entitled to inherit the estate of Late Alhaji Bagudu Waziri (the deceased). This is particularly so in this case where it was agreed that on the death of Late Alhaji Bagudu Waziri, one Late Khadi Mohammed Sambo was appointed as the Administrator of his Estate and after his death, the 11th respondent was appointed in his place as the Administrator of the Estate. The presumption is that these persons appointed as Administrators were knowledgeable in the Islamic law on succession and inheritance, and this fact was confirmed by the appellant’s first witness under cross-examination. It was not disputed that the two Administrators, in the discharge of their trusts, were of the view that the 1st – 10th and 13th – 22nd respondents qualities legal heirs of the deceased and distributed a part of his estate to them. The action commenced by the appellant before the Upper Sharia Court was to overturn the opinions of the two Administrators and to nullify the sharing of the estate and to demand the return of the properties from them. Therefore, the appellant had the burden of leading sufficient credible evidence to succeed in his claims. Mafolaku v. Alamu (1961-89) 1 SLRN 105; Murtar v. Kori (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 718; Tukurwa v. Kwa-Kwa (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 224) 449; Tumburkai v. Tumburkai (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 433) 745; Bulama v. Bulama (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 131; Hamza v. Yusuf (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 988) 238; Gezoji v. Kulere (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 458; Gulma v. Bahago (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 766; Hada Malumfashi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) 1; Abubakar v. Gama (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 588) 547 referred to] (Pp. 363, paras. C-H; 364, paras. E-G)
BAGUDU V BALKISU [2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 317 S.C
ON BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER ISLAMIC LAW
Under Islamic jurisprudence, the burden of proof lies squarely on the party making an assertion. The principle, encapsulated in the maxim – Al-bayyinatu’ala al mudda’i, wal-yaminu ‘ala man ankara (the proof lies with the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies). The principle Al-bayyinatu’ala al-muddai wal-yaminu ‘ala man ankara is unequivocal. The claimant must provide evidence to substantiate his claim, and if he fails to do so, the burden does not transfer to the defendant. Instead, the defendant may be asked to take an oath denying the claim, but the defendant is not required to prove the claimant’s assertion wrong. The maxim underscores the foundational rule that the party asserting a claim must provide evidence to substantiate it, while the party denying the claim may be required to take an oath if the claimant fails to meet the burden of proof. Consequently, in any legal dispute, the claimant bears the responsibility of proving his case to secure a favourable judgment. In this case, the appellant’s first, second, and third witnesses were not able to provide credible or conclusive evidence to establish that the marriages in question were illegal or that the 1st – 10th and 12th – 22nd respondents were not entitled to inherit from the estate of the deceased. And the trial court erred when it shifted the burden of proof to the respondents requiring them to disprove the appellant’s claims contrary to the Islamic legal principle that the burden of proof rests solely on the claimant (Al-bayyinatu ‘ala al-mudda ‘i). The trial court’s decision to shift the burden to the respondents was a clear deviation from this principle and a significant error, as it is the appellant’s responsibility to prove his case and not the respondents’ (as defendants) obligation to disprove it. Therefore, the decisions of the Sharia Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal were correct. (Pp. 376-377, paras. G-E)
BAGUDU V BALKISU [2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 317 S.C
ON HOW TO DISCHARGE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER ISLAMIC LAW
In order to discharge burden of proof under Islamic law, the plaintiff must call in evidence at least two unimpeachable male witnesses, or one unimpeachable male witness and two unimpeachable female witnesses, or one unimpeachable male witness coupled with his oath or two unimpeachable female witnesses coupled with his oath. And the burden on the plaintiff does not shift. In this case, the burden of proving illegality of the marriage between the deceased and the 1st, 2nd, and 12th respondents lies on the appellant and it can only be discharged by presenting credible witnesses in establishing his case. [Shiwa v. Bala (1961 – 1989) 1 SLRN 292; Isa V. Alabi (1961 – 1989) 1 SLRN 177; Akande v. Atanda (989) 1 SLRN 299; Baba v. Aruwa (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) 774; Garba v. Yaro (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 165) 102; Hada v. Malumfashi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) 1; Tumburkai v. Tumburkai (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 433) 745; Kwadage v. Bakore (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 437) 472; (Ige v. Dobi (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 596) 550; Danfagachi v. Ahmadu (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 647) 56; Hamza v. Yusuf (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 988) 238; Kur v. Fannami (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1228) 287; Gezoji v. Kulere (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 458 referred to.] (Pp. 364-365, paras. G-B; 372-373, paras. G-A)
BAGUDU V BALKISU [2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 317 S.C
ON EFFECT OF FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO DISCHARGE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER ISLAMIC LAW
Where the plaintiff fails to lead credible evidence in proof of his claim under Islamic law, his case can only succeed where a defendant is offered the opportunity to take an oath and refuses and the plaintiff takes the oath instead. Otherwise the case of the plaintiff will be dismissed iddun v. Abund (2000) 14 NWIR (Pt. 686) 209; Maigari v. Bida (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 747) 138; Abubakar v. Gama (199) 1 (PS 588) 547; Kausani w: Kausani (2000) 2 NWIR (Pt. 646) 681; Dakasoye v. Dakasoye (2000) 3 NWIR (Pt 647) 50; Danjuva v. Baari (2000) 7 NWIR (Pt. 665) 396 referred to.| (P. 365, paras. B-D)
POLARIS BANK PLC (FORMERLY SKYE BANK PLC) V. MRS CAROLINE O. PINHEIRO (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 197
On Burden of proof on party claiming special damages and how discharged
Where a party claims special damages, the burden is on him to prove the special damages to the last kobo. He has to do this by leading credible evidence, most of the time, by documents. However, there are instances where special damages can be proved without documents. He must lead specific, credible, believable, cogent and convincing evidence to prove the anticipated profits, or loss of profit. For a claim in the nature of special damages to succeed, it must be proved strictly and the court is not entitled to make its own estimate of such claim or engage in logical deductions. It should be noted that special damages should be specifically pleaded in a manner clear enough to enable the defendant know the origin or nature of the special damages being claimed against him to enable him prepare his defence. In simple terms, a party seeking special damages is tasked with the obligation of specifically pleading, itemizing and particularizing the scope of the damages and more importantly proving the special damages to the last kobo by leading credible evidence. In the instant case, the respondent did not discharge the burden of proving her entitlement to the claim of special damages for weekly payment of N50,000.00 (Fifty thousand Naira) from 16 October 1995 until the Bulldozer was restored into her possession. It was unclear the basis upon which the respondent sought a weekly payment of N50,000.00 as special damages. The pleadings and evidence adduced by the respondent did not demonstrate the grounds upon which the respondent was entitled to a weekly sum of N50,000.00. For the respondent to be awarded the said amount, the amount generated by the bulldozer on a weekly basis ought to have been particularized in the pleadings and further buttressed by credible evidence which would unequivocally have demonstrated the revenue generated by the bulldozer. The respondent failed to particularize the damages for loss of earnings since the seizure of the bulldozer.In the absence of pleadings and evidence to establish the nature and value of the said bulldozer, the revenue generated by the bulldozer, the precise pecuniary loss suffered by the respondent due to the seizure of the bulldozer or books of account evincing the inflow from the use of the bulldozer, the court should be hesitant in awarding special damages arbitrarily as it would invariably amount to the court delving into speculation.In the circumstances, the quantum of loss suffered by the respondent arising from the seizure of her bulldozer was not ascertainable by the tenure of evidence before the court.[A.T.E. Co. Ltd. v. Mil. Gov., Ogun State (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26; Nwangwu v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1812) 427 referred to.] (Pp. 218-220, paras. F-B)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On the Burden on the plaintiff to prove his entitlement to claim
Claims that rest on conjecture or speculation cannot be entertained by a court of law. A plaintiff must prove his entitlement to his claim with a reasonable degree of certainty. A party asserting a claim bears the burden of proving it. In the instant case, the claims for future dependence on the earnings, income, pension and services, as well as claims for future healthcare costs and the pre-death pain and suffering, were speculative. The legitimate considerations negated the plausibility of such claims, as they were not supported by any concrete or compelling evidence. Also, the appellant failed to produce credible evidence in support of his claims for funeral expenses, personal belongings, and past dependency on the service. Consequently, the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing them. [Nigerian Bottling Co. Ltd.v. Ngonadi (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 739 referred to.](P. 423, paras. D-G)
ADEYEMI V. A.P.C. (2024) 4 NWLR (PT. 1927) 63
ON EFFECT WHERE COURT MISPLACES BURDEN OF PROOF
Where a court misplaces the burden of proof, the judgment would be set aside. [Iheanacho v. Chigere (2022) 8 NWLR (Pt. 798) 103 referred to. (P. 115, paras. B).
ADEYEMI V. A.P.C. (2024) 4 NWLR (PT. 1927) 63
ON BURDEN OF PROOF ON PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER IT SHIFTS
A Plaintiff has the burden to prove the reliefs sought in the statement of claim or originating summons to obtain judgment. The burden does not shift. This is because he is the party who claims the reliefs in the statement of claim and so the onus probandi rests on him. He must prove the affirmative content of his statement of claim. The Nigerian adversarial system of justice demands that where a party in a suit complains that the provisions of the Constitution or a statute have been breached by the acts performed by the other party, the court ought to examine the acts complained of against the relevant provisions of the law in order to resolve the issue. (P. 116, paras. E-F).
ANTONIO OIL CO. LTD. V. AMCON (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 215
ON WHOM LIES ONUS OF PROOF OF ANTICIPATED LOSS OF PROFIT
The onus of proof is on a claimant to put forward before the trial court proof of anticipated loss of profit. The onus is on him to establish its anticipated loss of profit which will help the trial court to assess the accuracy of the projected profits. Loss of anticipated profit is in the nature of special damages which has to be particularized and specifically established by quantity. The claimant has the burden of proving the loss alleged by putting before the trial court credible evidence. It follows therefore, that a claim of anticipated loss of profit does not envisage estimated anticipated profit but evidence of accurate gross profits which the counter claimant is claiming in his statement of defence and counter claim.