The court below was therefore right, in my view, in holding that this could not be so in that 2nd Respondent who derived his title from the Respondent cannot set up a root of title different from that of his Vendor. He must either sink or swim with him, it being that a Vendor can only pass to the purchasers whatever title he has. See Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 76) 263.
— Dike & Ors. V. Francis Okoloedo & Ors. (SC.116/1993, 15 Jul 1999)
SHARE ON
In an action for declaration of title to land, as in the instant case, a plaintiff need not prove all the five ways. Where the plaintiff’s case is based on traditional evidence of ownership as the legal basis of his claim, his duty is limited to proving such traditional title and no more. On the other hand, if a plaintiff’s claim relies on conveyance as the legal basisof ownership , his duty is simply to produce the documents of title or the title deeds. The same thing applies where he claims through any of the other remaining three ways.
— Onnoghen JSC. Aigbobahi & Ors. v. Aifuwa, Osabuohien & Ors. (SC. 194/2001, 3 Feb 2006)
It is now well settled law that in a claim for declaration of title to land, a party claiming title to land must do so by proving with credible evidence one or more of the five methods of proving title to land, namely: A. Evidence of traditional history of title; B. Production of genuine and valid documents of title; C. Acts of Ownership numerous enough; D. Acts of possession over a long period of time and E. Act of possession of adjacent land long enough to make it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute. The 1st Appellant and the 1st Respondent, thus had open to them one or more of the above five methods to prove their title to the land in dispute and the law is that proof of any of these methods by credible evidence would be sufficient to ground an action for declaration of title to land.
— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Anyi & Ors. v. Akande & Ors. (2017) – CA/L/334/2014
In this regard, it is long settled that there are five methods by which ownership of land may be proved by a claimant. These are as follows: (i) By traditional evidence; (ii) By production of document of title which must be duly authenticated; (iii) By the exercise of numerous and positive acts of ownership over a sufficient length of time to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner of the land; (iv) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and (v) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that, the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See Idundun & Ors v. Okumagba and Others (1976) N.S.C.C. 445, (1976) 9-10 SC 227 AT 249 or (1976) 1 NMLR 200.
— Iguh, JSC. Kyari v Alkali (2001) – SC.224/1993
Viewed even from the standpoint of the common law, payment of purchase price coupled with possession gives the purchaser an equitable title and he is entitled to seek an order of specific performance to compel the vendor to convey legal title to him. But where the purchaser price is not fully paid, the purchaser will have no right to enforce specific performance – see Hewe v. Smith (1884) 27 Ch D 89, a case relied on by the learned trial judge.
— M.E. Ogundare, JSC. Odusoga v Ricketts (1997) – SC.57/1990
The land in dispute herein referred to by both parties can only be the land in respect of which Plaintiff claims damages for trespass and perpetual injunction against the Defendant. it is therefore strange and absurd for learned Counsel to the 1st Defendant to contend that the identity of the land in dispute is uncertain. It has always been accepted in our courts in land cases that where the area of land in dispute is well known to the parties. the question of proof not being really in dispute does not arise. In such a situation it cannot be contended that the area claimed or can the land in dispute be described as uncertain – See Etiko v. Aroyewun (1959) 4 FSC 129; (1959) SCN LR 308; Osho v. Ape (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 562) 492. In the circumstances of this case the identity of the land in dispute cannot he described as uncertain since both parties know and have accepted it as the land in dispute.
— Karibi-Whyte JSC. Engineer Bayo Akinterinwa & Anor V. Cornelius Oladunjoye (SC.98/94, 7 April 2000)
The first point that must be made is the basic principle of law that in a counter-claim, just like in any other claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the claimant to prove with precision and certainty and without inconsistency the identity of the land to which his claim or counter-claim relates. See Onwuka v.Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 182; Ezeokeke v. Umunocha Uga (1962) 1 All NLR 477. (1962) 2 SCNLR 199; Olusanmi v. Oshasona (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 22 at 36, Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 141 etc. There can be no doubt that the most common and, perhaps, the easiest way of establishing the precise area of land in dispute is by the production of a survey plan of such land. It is, however, equally clear that it is not in all cases for declaration of title to land that it is necessary to survey and/or tender the survey plan of the land in dispute. There are many cases in which no survey plans are essential for a proper determination of the issue. What the court must consider is whether, in a particular case, it is necessary for the proper trial of the action for a survey plan to be produced. Where there is no difficulty in identifying the land in dispute, a declaration of title may be made without the necessity of tying it to a survey plan.
— Iguh, JSC. Kyari v Alkali (2001) – SC.224/1993
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry