“The onus of proof is on the party who asserts a fact and who will fail if that fact failed to attain the standard of proof that would persuade the Court to believe the statement of the claim.” 56. The Court had the opportunity to further comment on the standard of proof required by this Court in contrast with National Courts in civil cases by holding that: “…there is a slight difference but that the combined effect is higher in standard (before this Court) than preponderance of evidence which is the standard in the National Court in civil cases”. 57. The Court concluded in that case at p. 15 by quoting from International Courts and Tribunals OUP, London, (853) 328, where Cheng, noted thus: “The burden of proof, however closely related to the duty to produce evidence, implies something more. It means that a party having the burden of proof must not only bring evidence in support of his allegations, but must also convince the Tribunal of their truth, lest they be disregarded for want, of sufficiency, or proof.” 58. It is pertinent to note that, the Applicants’ complaint is not based on any law in force, but on an alleged Bill, which, at the time of filing the Application, was yet to pass through all the stages of promulgation of law in the Respondent’s National Assembly, before it could receive Presidential assent to become a functional law with full force. The further worry of the Court is the failure of the Applicants to produce a certified copy of the Bill, the subject matter of the instant suit and the evidence of proceedings in the National Assembly. 20