WHETHER THE APPELLANT PROVED HIS CLAIM TO THE LAND IN DISPUTE TO ENTITLE HIM TO THE DECLARATION AND OTHER ANCILLARY RELIEFS SOUGHT.

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

WHETHER A PARTY SEEKING A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND CAN RELY ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE

“In a claim for declaration of title to land as in this case, the Plaintiff must establish his claim on the strength of his own case. He cannot rely on the weakness of the defence, if any.  The burden of proof on a Plaintiff in establishing his claim for declaratory relief is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration sought by his own evidence.  See Matanmi Vs. Dada (2013) 2 SCNJ 616 at 629- 630. The Plaintiff may however take advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the Plaintiff鈥檚 title.  See Oguanuhu Vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 639 at 707.- PER  J. S. ABIRIYI, J.C.A

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND -WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

“It is now firmly established that there are five ways of proving title to land.  These are:

(1)               By traditional evidence;

(2)               By production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved;

(3)               By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time;

(4)               By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land;

(5)               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.

The law is that the establishment of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. See ADESANYA VS. ADEROUNMU (2000) 6 SC (PT. 11) 18, NKWO VS. IBOE (1998) 7 NWLR (PT. 558) 354, NKADO VS. OBIANO (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 503) 31 AND AYOOLA VS. ODOFIN (1984) 11 SC 120.

-PER J. S. ABIRIYI, J.C.A