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
This court has made it clear in several decisions that if a party bases its title on a grant according to custom by a particular family or community, that party must go further to plead and prove the origin of the title of that particular person, family or community unless that title has been admitted. See on this Mogaji v. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 7) 393 at 431 also Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 S.C.25 at pp.57-58.
— Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Ogunleye v Oni (1990) – S.C. 193/1987
“The law is settled, an appellant has the duty to prove his case based on preponderance of evidence. See Afolabi Vs Ola (2016) LPELR 40186 (CA). A plaintiff is not allowed to rely on the weakness of the respondent’s case in establishing his case. See Umeadi & Ors Vs Chibuze & Ors (2020) 3 SCM page 195 -196 para 1, A per Peter Odili, JSC where it was held
“The learned jurist and author said it is as it, and again it is, trite and quite settled that in a claim for a declaration of title of land, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish his claim upon the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case of the defendant. The plaintiff must therefore satisfy the court that, upon pleadings and evidence adduced by him he is entitled to the declaration sought.” —
I.S. Bdliya, JCA. Umar Ibrahim v Nasiru Danladi Mu’azu & 2 Ors. (2022) – CA/G/317/2019
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
Thus a purchaser of registered land is not affected with notice either actual or constructive, of any unregistered estate, interest or claim which affects the estate of his vendor. The estate of a first registered owner for value is free from unregistered estate, interest or claim affecting the land. It is not limited by any interest adverse to or in derogation of his title subsisting or capable of arising at the time of first registration. The plaintiff having tendered the documents enumerated above ought to have been declared owner of the parcel of land and if the courts below had appreciated the basic idea behind registration of title under cap, 166, Laws of Lagos State, 1994 and its incidents, their decisions would have been different. There is no way the defendants can successfully challenge the title of the plaintiff short of the rectification of the register in accordance with sections 60 and 61 of the law, Since that was not the case, the title of the plaintiff in respect of plots 89, 91 and 93 remains indefeasible.
— Ogwuegbu, JSC. Onagoruwa & Ors. v. Akinremi (2001) – SC.191/1997
It is trite law that in order to constitute a transfer of legal title under English Law by purchase, there must be a valid sale, payment of money accompanied by acknowledgement of receipt and execution of a deed of conveyance. If a person sells his land to another and fails to put the person in possession, retains possession, the payment of money to the owner of a parcel of land does not per se amount to a transfer of title to the purchaser. The payment of purchase price must be accompanied either by a conveyance executed in favor of the purchaser to invest him with legal title or by entry into possession by the purchaser to give him equitable title to the land.
– Abiru, JCA. Okoli v. Gaya (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
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry