CORAM
ATANDA FATAI-WILLIAMS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY N. ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GILBERT AKINDOYIN AWOMUTI
APPELLANTS
ALHAJI JIMO SALAMI
BASHIRU OLAYIWOLA ABIOSE
HAMSAT AKANBI OLUWOLE
SAMSUDEEN IMANDA OKI (For themselvesand on behalf of Moboluwaduro Mosque Ikate)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW – DECLARATION OF TITLE – ONUS OF PROOF
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff was granted the land in dispute by the original owners of the land. The defendants claimed title to the same land on the basis of a plan which was not in existence at the time of the registration of the land and the terms of settlement relied on as conferring title was made after the plaintiff was granted the land.
HELD
The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the lower court giving title to the plaintiff.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial judge was right in granting the plaintiff declaration of title to the land in dispute
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NATURE OF ONUS OF PROOF IN A CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TILE TO LAND
There is no doubt that in a claim for declaration of title the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove his title to the land and he succeeds on the strength of his own case. However, where the land in dispute has been accepted by both the plaintiff and the defendant as originally family land, and either party claims title to that land through that family, the plaintiff only has to discharge the onus of proof of title in him and the onus shifts to the defendant, who has also claimed title to the land. The onus is on that defendant to prove his title. Where the defendant fails to discharge that onus, the plaintiff, who has discharged the onus on him, succeeds – Eso J.S.C
CASES CITED
Michael v. Oyegbade 1967 NMLR 136,
Udeakpu Eze v. Samuel Igiliegbe and Ors 14 WACA 61
Gray v. Spyer 1922 Ch. 22 at p. 27
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available