BENEDICT OTANMA V. KINGDOM YOUDUBAGHA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

BENEDICT OTANMA V. KINGDOM YOUDUBAGHA

ALHAJI ARANSI BELLO OKOMALU VS CHIEF AMINU AKINBODE
June 6, 2025
NKUMA VS ODILI
June 6, 2025
ALHAJI ARANSI BELLO OKOMALU VS CHIEF AMINU AKINBODE
June 6, 2025
NKUMA VS ODILI
June 6, 2025
Show all

BENEDICT OTANMA V. KINGDOM YOUDUBAGHA

Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 41131

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mon Mar 13, 2006

Suit Number: SC. 271/2002

CORAM



PARTIES


BENEDICT OTANMA APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant claimed that in 1952 he and one Ignatius Onwuasomba bought a piece of land measuring 200 ft X 100ft and that he is the rightful person to apply for and be granted a statutory right of occupancy under the Land Use Act.


HELD


The Court held that the plaintiff/appellant having failed to prove the identity of the land he claimed is doomed to failure.


ISSUES


1. Whether the learned trial judge was right (to have given) given (sic) much weight to the measurement of the land as distinct from the house erected thereon being the subject matter of the plaintiffs claim.

2 .Whether the learned trial judge was right to have used Exhibit “A” for purposes other than the sole purpose for which it was tendered and received in evidence.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


IDENTITY OF LAND MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED


An order for declaration of title being discretionary cannot be made by any court when the identity of the land is not clearly and unambiguously established.” Per D. MUSDAPHER, JSC


ONUS ON PLAINTIFF TO PROVE IDENTITY OF LAND


Although a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title to land has the primary duty or burden to prove clearly and unequivocally the precise area to which his claim relates, however, the burden will not arise where the identity of the land in dispute does not arise from the pleadings. That is to say, where the defendant by his pleadings admitted the description location features and dimension of the land. In such a circumstance, the identity of the disputed land is not a question in issue and does not require proof. Per D. MUSDAPHER, JSC


DOCUMENTS RELIED ON


“… a party cannot rely on one part of a document tendered by him and reject another part of the same document. Per D. MUSDAPHER, JSC


CASES CITED


1. Adelaja V. Alade [1999] 4 SCNJ 225

2. Adeniran V. Alao [2001] 18 NWLR (Pt 745) 361

3. Adofin V. Afia 6 WACA 216.


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1. Rivers State Abandoned Property (Custody and Management) Edict 1969


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.