Evidence (2047)
HELD:
"There is no doubt that the burden and standard of proof in any criminal proceedings are squarely on the prosecution.
HELD:
"In resolving the first issue set by the appellant in this appeal, it is sufficient to refer to Order 32 Rule 2(3) of the Ekiti State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2020, which provides that the oral examination of a witness during his evidence-in-chief shall be limited to confirming his written deposition and tendering in evidence all disputed documents or other exhibits referred to in the deposition.
HELD:
"The evidence of the Appellant as DW2 and that of the 2nd accused person as DW3 on one hand, and that of the Respondent's witnesses, particularly PW2, PW4 and PW7 on the other hand were materially contradictory.
HELD:
"The burden on the prosecution in a criminal charge is to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
"Where there are conflicting or different versions of oral testimonies from the prosecution and the defence, it is the documentary evidence that can resolve such a conflict.
HELD:
"It is trite that he who asserts must prove." See OJO v. FRN (2023) LPELR-59970(SC)
HELD:
"...These are clearly circumstantial evidence in contrast to direct evidence.
HELD:
"Equally important is the fact that the reliefs sought by the first respondent at the trial Court are declaratory in nature.
HELD:
"On issue two, firstly, may I state that by virtue of Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the burden of proof in civil proceedings lies on the party who will fail if no evidence is given on either side.
