GEORGE ONOBRUCHERE AND ANOTHER VS IVMROMOEBO ESEGINE AND ANOTHER - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

GEORGE ONOBRUCHERE AND ANOTHER VS IVMROMOEBO ESEGINE AND ANOTHER

LAWANI AJEIGBE VS. ODEDINA & ORS
July 22, 2025
ANTHONY IDEHEN OGIDA VS JACKSON OSAZE OLIHA
July 22, 2025
LAWANI AJEIGBE VS. ODEDINA & ORS
July 22, 2025
ANTHONY IDEHEN OGIDA VS JACKSON OSAZE OLIHA
July 22, 2025
Show all

GEORGE ONOBRUCHERE AND ANOTHER VS IVMROMOEBO ESEGINE AND ANOTHER

Legalpedia Citation: (1986) Legalpedia (SC) 17136

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 21, 1986

Suit Number: SC. 87/1984

CORAM


M.L. UWAIS (Presided) – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


GEORGE ONOBRUCHEREOGHRE OBUKOWHO (For themselves and on behalf of OMOVWODO Family of Afiesere-Ughelli) APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants /Plaintiffs sued the Respondents /defendants claiming a declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land, An Order that an alleged pledge of part of the said Ogorode by one Emunotor, the ancestor of the Defendants family is null and void and of no legal consequence, an order of perpetual injunction, and damages for trespass committed by the defendants. The trial judge dismissed the claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Dissatisfied with the decision of the high court, the plaintiffs appealed to the court of appeal. The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit. The plaintiffs, still dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court.


HELD


The appeal was allowed, the judgment and orders of the court below was set aside.


ISSUES


1. The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law when it said “To sum up I uphold Mr Okpoko’s submission that on the state of the pleadings, the onus was on the plaintiff to prove sale, and not on the defendants to prove purchase”.

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in the view it took on the onus of proof.

3. Learned counsel did not challenge the authenticity of the signature of the document.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


In Customary law, the pledger retains the radical title


“In Customary law, the pledger retains the radical title. It is not extinguished by the pledge. The pledger has the right of redemption, and it does not matter for how long the land had been pledged.” Per OPUTA, JSC


An onus of proof does not exist in vacuo


“An onus of proof does not exist in vacuo. The onus or burden of proof is merely an onus to prove or establish an issue. There cannot be any burden of proof where there are no issues in dispute between the parties.” Per OPUTA, JSC


CASES CITED


Lawrence Onyekaonwu & Ors. v. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 All NLR 32 at p. 35

Ikeanyi v. Adighogu (1957) 2 E. N L R 38 at p. 39

Leragun v. Funlayo (1955-56) WR N L R 167

Agbo Kofi v. Addo Kofi (1933) 1 WA CA 284

Orisharinu v. Mefue (1937) 13 NL R 181

Bello Isiba & Ors. v. J. T Hanson & Anor. 1967) 1 All NLR 8


STATUTES REFERRED TO



CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.