but he declined to do that for security reasons. Finally, he said that he gave a copy of the Medical Certificate he issued to the plaintiff to Amnesty International and added that he did not report to Amnesty International as an employee as the relationship between them was not one of employer and employee. Issues to be resolved 27. From the pleadings, the issues that are clearly identifiable are the following: (a) whether or not the plaintiff was arrested and detained by agents of the defendant; (b) whether or not the plaintiff was tortured whilst in detention; (c) whether or not the plaintiff sustained any harm or injury, physical or otherwise; if so, whether or not plaintiff received medical treatment for any physical injury; and finally, (d) whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages or compensation from the defendant. Burden of proof 28. From the pleadings and the issues set out above, it becomes certain that the defendant assumes no burden of proof. The plaintiff assumes the entire evidential burden of producing evidence and of persuasion, since he asserts the affirmative of all the issues. The defence, as pointed out earlier, consists largely of denial and they put the plaintiff to strict proof. This rule, that proof rests on he who asserts the affirmative and not on he who denies, "is an ancient rule founded on consideration of common sense and should not be departed from without strong reasons", according to Lord Maugham in the case of Constantine Line v. Imperial Smelting Corporation (1942) A.C. 154 at p. 174. In assuming the burden of proof, it means that if at the end of the day the plaintiff has not produced evidence to discharge the burden on him he must lose the decision on the particular issue. However, being a civil matter the burden that the plaintiff assumes is one of a proof by preponderance of probability or sometimes called reasonable probability. Analysis of the issues 29. The first issue is whether or not the plaintiff was arrested and detained by the agents of the defendant. The plaintiff testified on this issue by himself. No witness was called. Before we proceed the court has to state that failure to call a witness does not derogate from the evidence adduced by one person only, nor does it prevent the court from accepting and relying on the evidence of a sole witness. It all depends on credibility and the nature of the evidence adduced. And also as decided in the case of Morrow v. Morrow (1914) 2 I.R. 183 in a civil case where such testimony is unimpeached the court should act on it. 30. The plaintiff testified that during the night of 27th March 2006, he was arrested by a group of armed security agents of the defendant. He gave details about the places he was taken to as well as the names of some of the security personnel. He did not know why he was arrested until the security personnel told him it was in connection with inaccurate reportage his newspaper carried in respect of the alleged coup plot against the government, and also his lack of patriotism in making complaints against the government to the then South African President Thabo Mbeki. He was detained for 22 days before being released on bail. 31. In his address, Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the evidence stood uncontroverted so the court must act upon it. He cited some decided cases in support including the decision of this court in Chief Ebrimah Manneh v. Republic of The Gambia (2009) CCJLR (Pt 2) 116. 32. In his submission, Counsel for the defendant stated that whilst they did not admit that the defendant's agents arrested and detained the plaintiff, yet even if they did arrest him he the plaintiff called for it through his admission of confrontational and unpatriotic acts against the government. Moreover, since the head of the National Intelligence Agency did not know the reason for the plaintiff's arrest, it cast a doubt on the plaintiff's story that it was the defendant who ordered his arrest. 33. Having regard to the detailed narration of events and their consistency it is difficult to say that the plaintiff was just framing up a story. The reasons he said were given by the security agents for arresting him were all matters which in fact occurred and for which he was the actor and author. So they were not falsehoods. That led the defence counsel to say that even if the plaintiff was arrested by the defendant's agents, his acts and conduct called for it. This was some kind of justification, which is belated since the defendant did not admit the acts complained of in the first place. In other words, justification must be pleaded before the court could consider any facts or submission in support thereof. And even if justification had been properly raised in the defence, it would not justify an arrest without warrant, detention for 22 days 5