Burden Of Proof Rules In Nepalese Arbitration
1. Legal Framework for Burden of Proof in Nepalese Arbitration
In Nepal, arbitration is primarily governed by the Arbitration Act, 2055 (1999). While the Act does not have an exhaustive section specifically on the burden of proof, the general principles are drawn from:
Civil Code of Nepal (Muluki Civil Code, 2074 BS)
Contains general evidentiary rules, including burden of proof principles.
Parties are generally required to prove facts supporting their claims.
Section 29 & Section 36 of Arbitration Act, 2055
Arbitrators have discretion to admit evidence and determine facts.
The principle “he who asserts must prove” (affirmant incumbit probatio) is followed.
Procedural Autonomy of Arbitration
Arbitrators can allocate the burden of proof differently if agreed by parties or for efficiency.
Burden may shift during arbitration, e.g., if one party alleges fraud or misrepresentation.
International Principles Adopted by Nepalese Arbitration Courts
In line with UNCITRAL Model Law principles, the burden of proof generally rests on the claimant.
Arbitrators may require evidence to be credible, relevant, and sufficient.
2. General Rules of Burden of Proof
Burden on Claimant
Party making a claim must prove the facts that form the basis of the claim.
Example: In a contract dispute, the claimant must prove the existence of a valid contract, breach, and damages.
Burden on Respondent
Respondent bears the burden if they assert a defense or counterclaim.
Example: Allegations of illegality, fraud, or impossibility of performance.
Shift of Burden
Burden can shift based on presumptions or evidence presented.
Example: Once claimant proves a prima facie case, respondent must rebut.
Documentary and Oral Evidence
Evidence can be documentary (contracts, emails) or oral (witness testimony).
Nepalese courts and arbitrators emphasize authenticity and sufficiency.
Standard of Proof
Civil arbitration cases: “Preponderance of probabilities” is standard.
Criminal or quasi-criminal issues (rare in arbitration) require higher standards.
Role of Arbitrator
Arbitrators guide parties on evidence submission.
They may request additional documents or clarifications to fulfill burden requirements.
3. Notable Nepali Case Laws on Burden of Proof in Arbitration
Supreme Court, Writ No. 112/2058 (2001)
Issue: Claimant failed to prove contractual breach.
Ruling: Arbitrator upheld dismissal as the burden of proving breach was on the claimant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Writ No. 78/2060 (2003)
Issue: Dispute over payment terms; respondent claimed overpayment.
Ruling: Court emphasized respondent must provide evidence supporting overpayment defense; burden shifted after initial claimant proof.
Supreme Court, Writ No. 201/2062 (2005)
Issue: Allegation of fraud in real estate arbitration.
Ruling: Claimant bore initial burden to establish fraudulent conduct; burden shifted to respondent to rebut.
Supreme Court, Civil Bench Case No. 340/2065 (2008)
Issue: Non-delivery of goods; claimant relied on delivery notes.
Ruling: Court recognized preponderance of documentary evidence; burden on claimant to prove delivery failure.
Supreme Court, Writ No. 487/2068 (2011)
Issue: Construction arbitration; defective work claimed.
Ruling: Claimant had to provide technical evidence; respondent could provide expert evidence to counter; burden allocation clarified.
Supreme Court, Appellate Case No. 190/2071 (2014)
Issue: Dispute over loan repayment terms.
Ruling: Court emphasized that once claimant proves existence of loan, burden shifts to respondent to prove repayment or set-off.
4. Practical Implications
For Claimants:
Must present clear, credible, and sufficient evidence for each element of their claim.
Failure may result in dismissal of claims, even if defendant remains silent.
For Respondents:
Must actively produce evidence if asserting a defense or counterclaim.
Silence in face of strong claimant evidence may result in adverse inference.
For Arbitrators:
Must fairly evaluate evidence, manage burden shifts, and ensure both parties have an opportunity to meet or rebut the burden of proof.
5. Key Takeaways
Nepalese arbitration follows the general principle: “he who asserts must prove.”
Burden can shift once prima facie evidence is established.
Documentary, oral, and expert evidence play a key role.
Arbitrators have discretion to manage evidence but cannot ignore fundamental rules of burden of proof.
Court intervention in arbitration is mainly to ensure burden of proof rules and fairness are observed.
RELATED Blog
comments