“It is settled law that, in bailment, the onus of proving that there is no negligence is on the bailee. (See Phipson on Evidence (eleventh edition) p. 93 para. 94). In other words, provided that the claim is properly worded, the onus of proof is always on the bailee to show that the loss of, or damage to, the goods entrusted to him occurred without negligence or default on his part. Furthermore, we fail to see that it is open to the appellants counsel to complain about the onus of proof, when in fact the only issue tried was that contained in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Defence, and it had been agreed between the parties that the defendants (now appellants) should begin and prove the positive assertion pleaded by them. In the circumstances, it is patent that the onus upon the appellants arises not only by the operation of the law, but also from the agreement reached between the parties at the trial, which had the effect of casting the onus of proof upon the defendants. In our view, therefore, it follows that this aspect of the ground of appeal is, to say the least, misconceived. Consequently, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants based upon it is devoid of any substance. As a matter of fact, the burden of proof in bailment was considered in the well-known case of Joseph Travers and Sons Ltd. v. Cooper (1915 1 K.B. 73 at 90), where in his judgment Kennedy L.J., quoted with approval, the opinion expressed in the House of Lords by Lord Halsbury in the unreported case of Morrison, Pollexfen and Blair v. Walton, delivered 10th May, 1909 as follows: “It appears to me that here there was bailment made to a particular person, a bailment for hire and reward, and the bailee was bound to show that he took reasonable and proper care for the due security and proper delivery of that bailment; the proof of that rested upon him.”Per D. O. IBEKWE, J.S.C. in CHIEF D.O. OGUGUA V. ARMELS TRANSPORT LTD. (1974-LCER-918-SC) at Pp. 4 -5, Paras. E-B.