in international law practice by high standard of proof or preponderance of evidence required, the evidence must be considered in material particular” See MOUKHTAR IBRAHIM v. GOVT. OF JIGAWA STATE & 2 ORS (unreported) ECW/CCJ/JUD/12/14 pg. 27 para. 95. 64. In summarizing these similarities, the following facts come to light: the land registration document referred to as proof of ownership by the Applicant is the same with that of the alleged owner; the title document indicates that the alleged owner was born on the same day, month and year as claimed by the Applicant; the title document indicates that the alleged owner lives in the same town as the Applicant; the registration number indicated in the title document is the same as the land in dispute; the size of the disputed property indicated in the land document is the same as that claimed by the Applicant; the land upon which the auctioned building is situated has the same registration number with that claimed by the Applicant, ditto same size and same location. 65. The Court believes that the aforementioned similarities viewed together with Exhibit 1 are in themselves sufficient, on a preponderance of evidence, to support the Applicant’s claim of ownership of the auctioned property and it so holds. 66. At this point, having found that the Applicant has proved the ownership of the auctioned property, the burden now shifts on the Respondent to counter the claim of ownership by the Applicant. The Court recalls its decision wherein it laid an important dictum in this wise as follows “…as a general rule, the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff. If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Defendant, 25