burden of proof of title to land

The onus of proving the identity of a parcel of land in dispute is on the Plaintiff or Claimant who is seeking declaration of the title to the land. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to prove clearly and unequivocally the area to which his claim relates. It is however trite law that the burden of proof is obviated or removed where the identity and extent of the land in dispute is well known by all parties to the dispute, and so never in issue. Ayuya & Ors. V. Yonrin & Ors. (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 135. Umoru V. Adama (2018) HELAR ratio 1 Lack of proof of the identity of the land claimed will make it impossible for any declaration or injunction to issue – Okunriboye V. Osuma (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 866) 342 CA.

Where the Plaintiff/Claimant alleges that he got the land from his father and the Defendant does not deny or challenge this allegation, then the Plaintiff has no duty to prove his father’s own source of title. Bakare V. Dada (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 867) 557 C.A.; Anukam V. Anukam (2008) All FWLR (Pt.413) 1267 P.579, paras E – F. Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 4

It is for the Claimant who claims declaration of title to land in dispute in possession of another to establish his title by supplying credible evidence of ownership. The burden will thereafter shift to the Defendant to show that he is entitled to possess the land, for example, on the application of such equitable rules of law as laches and acquiescence. If succeeds that will be strong and cogent enough as to oust the Claimant’s ownership claims, and so resultantly have the court refuse the reliefs the claimant seeks. Where the Defendant’s reliance on those equitable rules of law fails, the Claimant succeeds. Isaac V. Imasuen (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1511) 250, Adesanya V. Otuewu (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 414. UWANDU V CHINAGOROM (2019) HELAR ratio 2; Ahmed v Salisu (2021) HELAR 4; Sanyinna V Sanyinna (2019) HELAR 1

Where a party’s claim is for trespass to land, all he needs to establish to succeed is either his exclusive possession or the right to such possession of the land in dispute. However, when the Defendant asserts ownership of the land in dispute also, title to the land has automatically been put in issue thereby making it necessary for the Plaintiff to establish better title than that of the Defendant who is possession in order to succeed. See Bakare V. Dada (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 867) 557 CA; Garan V. Olomu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 711) 1514 pp. 579 – 580, paras. H – B; Eyo V. Onuoha & Anor. (2011) NWLR (Pt. 1257) 1; UWANDU V CHINAGOROM (2019) HELAR ratio 2; Ahmed v Salisu (2021) HELAR 4; Sanyinna V Sanyinna (2019) HELAR 1

Yes. In a claim for declaration of title to land, the Claimant has the evidential burden of proving and establishing his claim upon the strength of his case, and not on the weakness of the case of the defence, the exception being that he is entitled to take advantage of any part of the defendant’s case that supports his case. In other words, a Claimant must succeed upon the strength of the case made out by him and not on the weakness of the defence. See Ogbeide V. Omadasun (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 904) 1139 CA; Anyafula V. Maku (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1406) 396; Igbinwisi V. Igbinere (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 819) 1956; Onwugbufor V. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 424) 252, Adesanya V. Aderonmu (2000) I NWLR (Pt. 15) 2492. UWANDU V CHINAGOROM (2019) HELAR ratio 2; Ahmed v Salisu (2021) HELAR 4; Ehinle V. Ikorodu Local Govt Area (2020)HELAR ratio 4

Ordinarily, it is trite law that in an action for declaration of tile to land, the Plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case. He never will be allowed to depend on the weakness of the defence as such, the exception being only that he can take advantage where the defendant’s case supports the Claimant’s case. In other words, while a Claimant must still go on to properly establish his claim, he can take advantage of the weakness of the defence, especially where it supports and established his claim. See Ogbeide V. Amadasun (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 904) 1139; Anyafula V. Maku (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1406) 396; Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR 1; Regd. trustees A.C.C v Regd. trustess G.C.C (2021) HELAR 1; Ehinle V. Ikorodu Local Govt Area (2020)HELAR ratio 4

A bona fide purchaser for value is someone who purchased a property or land for a valuable consideration without prior knowledge or notice of any other title apart from the title passed unto him by his own vendor. It is only if what was passed unto him fails will the title he claims to have acquired also fail. Therefore, a bona fide purchaser for value would to establish that he acquired without notice of any adverse title, that he furnished valuable consideration, and that what he acquired is solid and superior. Best (Nig) Ltd. V. Blackwood Hodge Nig. Ltd. & Anor. (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 95; Akindele v Abe & 3ors (2021)HELAR ratio 9

Where the Plaintiff and the Defendant trace their title to a particular established owner, the first in time to purchase the land is regarded as the owner of the land. He who is first in time has a better claim in law and equity. Ayanwale V. Odusanmi (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 328 SC; Adelaja V. Fanoiki (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 137; Yahaya V. Ilorin W.L.G (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 874) 1837. Istifanus v. Ismailu (2019) HELAR 3

The mere production of Deed of Conveyance or document of title does not automatically entitle a party to a claim in declaration. Before the production of document of title is admitted as sufficient proof of ownership, the court must satisfy itself that a) The document is genuine or valid. b) It has been duly executed, stamped & registered. c) That the grantor has the authenticity and capacity to make the grant. d) The grantor has in fact what he proposes to grant. e) That the grant has the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument. Agboola V. UBA Plc. & Ors. (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 375; Ayorinde V. Kuforiji (2007) 4 NWLR, Pt. 1024 p.341; Dosunmu V. Dada (2002) 13 NWLR pt. 783 p.1; Dabo V. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR Pt. 923 p.181; Barau V. Consolidted Tin Mines Ltd (2019) HELAR ratio 1

Where a person pays for land, obtains receipts of payment, followed by him going into possession and remaining in possession, he acquires equitable interest that can only be defeated by a purchaser of the land for value (who has perfected his purchase and so gotten a legal title) without notice of his prior equity. Goldmark (Nig) Ltd. & Ors. V. Ibafron Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308) 291; Nsiegbe V. Mgbemena (20070 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 364; Kachalla V. Banki (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) 364.

Naming is completely immaterial in the identification of any land in dispute. It goes to no effect where the plaintiff is giving a piece of land a name while the defendant on the other hand is giving the same piece of land another name. Korobotei v. Obubo (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 620); Melifonwu & Ors v. Egbuji & Ors. (1982) N.S.C.C. In the case of Nwoke v. Okere (1994)5 NWLR (Pt. 343) where the Supreme Court held per Belgore, JSC that “in all land cases the party claiming right to any portion or parcel of land must clearly identify the land. It is not enough to call it one name and rest there. The other party could well give another name to the same land or part of it or merged with it to form bigger land. These are common occurrence in most land claims between communities in many parts of the country”. The fact that both parties refer to the same land by different names does not make the identity of the land uncertain particularly where the plaintiff’s claim thereto is tied to a survey plan drawn to scale by a licensed surveyor as in the instant case. Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553;Barau V. Consolidted Tin Mines Ltd (2019) HELAR ratio 8;