This puts the matter beyond argument that the payment made on the 03/06/2008 by the PW1 was for the 6 no shops which the 2nd Defendant had earlier deposited money for, and he urged the Court to so hold. I have carefully read the processes filed by the parties in this case as well as the Exhibits tendered by the witnesses called in this case. In the same vein, I have watched the demeanor of witnesses and listen to their testimonies while given evidence in this matter. To my mind this case can be decided on the sole issue raised by the Plaintiff to wit:“Whether the Plaintiff herein has made out his case upon the balance of probabilities and is entitled to the reliefs sought” sought” This issue is in tandem with the issue for determination as formulated by the 1st Defendant and takes care of the three (3) issues distilled by the 2nd Defendant for determination. It is settled law that he who asserts must prove. In other words the burden of prove is not static as it shift from side to side. In the case of Aminu V. Hassan (2014) 5 NWLR (pt. 1400) 287 @ 316. the supreme Court Per Peter Odiu J.S.C held: “That the burden of proof rests upon the party who substantially asserts the affirmative before the evidence is gone into. The position therefore is that the burden of proof lies on the person who would would fail, assuming no evidence had been adduced on either side. Also in respect of particular facts, facts, the burden rest on the party against whom judgment would be given if no evidence were produced in respect of those facts. facts. Once that party produces the evidence that would satisfy the Court then the burden shift on the party against 16