APALOO C.J.: As respondent’s evidence about the persons who successively occupied the stool and the royal house from which they hailed tallied with the appellant’s and therefore lent support to the rotatory principle urged by the appellant, it was submitted to the appellate National House of Chiefs that whatever defects there might be in the trial tribunal’s judgment, its holding in favour of rotation must be right and should accordingly be left undisturbed. The appellate house rejected that submission and delivered itself as follows:
“A plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. The onus of proof always lies on him who alleges a certain fact, and unless this proof is made, the plaintiff cannot succeed. It is therefore wrong to submit that the plaintiff must succeed because certain aspects of his evidence were corroborated by the defendant.”
If this proposition of law means that a party cannot prove his case by admissions from the…