should not be departed from without strong reasons. This was stated by Lord Maugham in the case of CONSTANTINE LINE V. IMPERIAL SMELTING CORPORATION (1942) A.C 154 at P. 174. The burden of proving the facts of their allegation rests on the plaintiffs and they are required to present evidence to support those allegations made in their Originating Application. In the case of Falana & anor V. Republic of Benin & 2 Ors (2012) Unreported, this Court held that “as always, the onus of proof is on a party who asserts a fact and who will fail if that fact fails to attain that standard of proof that will persuade the court to believe the statement of the claim”. Similarly, in PETROSTAR (NIGERIA) LIMITED V. BLACKBERRY NIGERIA LIMITED & 1 OR CCJELR (2011), the court, in its consideration reiterated the cardinal principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”. Therefore, where a party asserts a fact, he must produce evidence to substantiate the claim. Though the burden of proof lies on the party who assets the affirmative, where there is an admission expressly or impliedly by the Defendant, no further proof is required. The Defendant in para 2.04 of their statement of defence denied the Plaintiffs’ allegation of arrest and detention and further states that there are no records of the said arrest and/or detention by the Nigerian Police, the Nigerian Military or men of the AEPB. 30