How To Prove Money Paid Into Bank (I)

On onus of proof in
civil cases –
In civil cases, the onus of proving a particular fact is on the party who asserts. And because civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities  and preponderance of evidence, a party who has led credible evidence to prove his case will obtain judgment based on such preponderance of evidence  and balance of probability in his favour. [Newbreed Org. Ltd. v. Erhomosele (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 974) 499; Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC 25; Arase v. Arase
(1981) 5 SC 33 referred to.] (P. 183, paras. D-F)
11. On Standard of proof of allegation of crime in civil proceeding-
It is only when an allegation of a crime is a fact directly in issue in a civil proceeding that the standard of proof required to succeed is beyond reasonable doubt. Where the allegations of crime is not the basis for the civil matter, the plaintiff is required to prove his case as in a normal civil matter. In the instant case, the issue of fraud did not feature in the case prominently. It was not seen either in the evidence of the respondent or the judgment of the trial court where the issue of the fraud was given prominence. The appellants did
not stand trial on issue of fraud but for their refusal to honour their part of the contract they entered into with the respondent. (P.186, paras. C-E)
12.    On Duty on trial court in evaluation of evidence –
The mere fact that a case is not defended does not entitle the trial court to overlook the need to ascertain whether the evidence adduced before it establish or prove the claim or not. A trial court is not for any reason relieved of the burden of ensuring that the evidence adduced in support of a case sustains it irrespective of the posture of the defendant. Apart from ensuring that the evidence led supports the case of the plaintiff, and this, a trial court must do, it is only bound to make findings of fact on issues joined between the parties. [Oyewole
v. Oyekola (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 612) 560 referred to.] (Pp. 188-189, paras. G-B)
13. On Duty on trial court in evaluation of evidence –
It is the duty of the trial court to make findings of fact on material evidence/issue adduced before it.  Unless issue is joined between the parties, the Judge is not expected to make any finding of fact therein; and such non-finding cannot lead to a miscarriage of justice. (P. 189, paras. B-D)
14. On Presumption of withholding evidence –
By virtue of section 167(d) ofthe Evidence Act, 2011, evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In the instant case, if the appellants had produced the certificate of deposit, it may not have been favourable to them. The respondent led cogent evidence to prove that he actually deposited
money with the appellant as fixed deposit and the appellant did not deny or disprove the evidence. (Pp.185-186, paras. H-A)
15. On Effect of failure to argue preliminary objection at the hearing of appeal –
Where a party merely states in his brief that he has a preliminary objection and states the grounds thereof without more, that does not amount to argument of the preliminary objection. Failure to proffer argument either in his brief or at the hearing of the appeal is clear indication that he has abandoned same. (P.180,paras.A-B)
On Effect of failure to argue preliminary objection at the hearing of appeal –
Where a party indicated in his brief of argument that he has a preliminary objection to raise at the
hearing’ of the appeal but failed to move the court to take the objection at the hearing of the appeal,
such preliminary objection is deemed to have been abandoned. In the instant appeal, the respondent
having failed to move the court to hear his preliminary objection at the hearing of the appeal, and having also, in alternative, failed to proffer argument in brief in support of the preliminary objection, had abandoned same. The said preliminary objection, as urged by the learned counsel for appellant, was deemed abandoned and discountenanced. [N.H.R.1. v. Ayoade (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 530) 541 referred to.] (P.180,paras.C-E)
On Raising of fresh issue on appeal –
A new issue can only be raised at the appellate court with the leave of court. In the instant case, there is no evidence that such leave had been sought and obtained before the issue of the status of the 2″d appellant was raised. In the circumstance, such an issue was untenable and was discountenanced.
[Owners, M/V Gongola Hope v. S.C. Nig. Ltd. (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1056) 189; Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978)  3 SC 219; Dweye v. lyomahan (1983) 2 SCNLR 135; University of lbadan v. Adetoro (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) 375; lsheno v. Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 582 referred to.] (Pp. 180-181, paras. G-A) .
Nigerian Cases Referred to in the Judgment:
Adegoke v. Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 410
Agoda v. Enamuotor (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 407
Aguocha v. Aguocha (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 906) 165
Akanbi v. Alao (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 118
Ali v. Obande (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 620) 563
Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 386
Arase v. Arase (1981) 5 SC 33
Bello v. Aruwa (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 454
Buraimoh v. Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 352
Dakingari v. Ward & Green (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 718
Dweye v. lyomahan (1983) 2 SCNLR 135
Ebba v. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372
Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC 25
Ezeanali v. Attah (2004) 7NWLR (Pt. 873) 468
Ezekwesili v. Agbapuonwu (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 825) 337
Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219
Folami v. Cole (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 445
lfeta v. S.PD.C. (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 585
lsheno v. Julius Berger (Nig.) PIc (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1084)
582
Jiaza v. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 182
Karibo v. Grend (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 426
Koiki v. Magnusson (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 492
Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91
N.E P.A. v. Olagunju (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 602
NHR.I. v. Ayoade (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 530) 541
Newbreed Org. Ltd. v. Erhomosele (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 974)
499.

Imo State Police Command displaying firearms it recovered recently. Photo:NAN