On whom lies the burden of proof where a document is alleged to be forged

"... The defendant case is that the two Exhibits are forged and that DW2 did not make them. In such a case, the burden of proof of the forgery rests on the party who alleges.

Since forgery is a crime, the onus of proof on him who alleges is proof beyond reasonable doubt. See the case of Edohoeket v. Inyang (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1192) page 25 Held II.

In this case, the defendant denied that Exhibit E dated 26th September, 1984 and Exhibit G dated 6th November, 1984 are its documents. DW2 in his evidence denied them. He said he did not sign them. He had the opportunity of testifying in the case. He did not seek the leave or the Court to write or made his correct signature before the Court. He lost that opportunity but the defendant must prove the forgery beyond reasonable doubt. I think I cannot agree more with the above cogent finding, which is obviously supported by the evidence on the record and trite fundamental principles of law."

Per SAULAWA, J.C.A. in MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED v. LAWRENCE DICKSON HOPE. (2016) LPELR-41191(CA)