PHILLIPS B HENRY VS JOSEPH O. OGUNDIPE
August 29, 2025BADIRU WULEMOTU VS AMINATU ELETU
August 29, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1967-11) Legalpedia 56296 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Nov 17, 1967
Suit Number: SC 18/1967
CORAM
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
BINTU AYINKE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW, EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant claimed to have purchased the land in dispute from someone whose title was uncertain and her possession was continuously challenged.
HELD
The court held that the documents relied upon by the respondents were worthless and that her acts of possession were not numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference of exclusive ownership.
ISSUES
Whether the decision of the High Court granting the respondent declaration of title was proper in the circumstances of the case.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT A PERSON RELYING ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND NEEDS TO PROVE
A person relying on circumstantial evidence in support of a claim for declaration of title to land must prove “acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference” that he is the exclusive owner. Per Brett, J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Ekpo v. lta 11 N.L.R. 68
2. Abudulai v. Manue (1945) 10 W.A.C.A. 172
3. Onyekaonwu v. Ekwubir S.C. 278/1964 – 14.1. 66
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act
