Identity of land

When a person approaches the court to claim a declaration of title to land, he has a primary duty to show the court clearly the area of land to which his claim relates so that the land can be identified with certainty.

The claimant in an action for declaration of title to land has the onus of proving to the court title to a defined area to which the declaration can be pinned down.

Where the land being claimed is contained in a survey plan, the claimant has the responsibility of serving the plan on the defendant to inform him of the land being claimed against him.

Such a survey plan must clearly show the dimensions of the land, the boundaries and other features. This is so decided in the following cases: Idehen v. Osemwenkhae (1997) 10  NWLR (pt. 525) 358 SC ;  Dada v Dosunmu (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1010) 134 SC

In a claim for declaration of title to land, the claimant has the burden of establishing his claim upon the strength of his own case and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s case.

The claimant, therefore, has the responsibility of satisfying the court that he is entitled to the sought declaration upon the pleadings and evidence adduced by him. See Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007)  3 NWLR (pt. 1021) 282 and  Ajibade v. Ishula (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 628 SC.

In a claim for declaration of title to land, where the claimant fails to give the exact extent and identity of the land he is claiming, his case should be dismissed. See Aribe v. Asanlu (1980) 5 – 7 SC 78.

Thus the claimant in a claim for declaration of title to land has the duty of establishing with certainty and accuracy the identity of the claimed land. This is a condition precedent to the success of the claim.

It has also been held that where the claimant fails to prove his root of title relied on in a land matter; the proper order to make in such circumstances is a dismissal of his case. See Ndukuba v. Izundu  (2007) 1NWLR (Pt. 1016) 432.

It is by a properly drawn survey plan that the identity of land is proved. However, a survey plan, no matter how well and how properly drawn, has to be countersigned by a Surveyor–General to be admissible in evidence. See Atolagbe v. Shorun (1985)  1 NWLR  (Pt.2) 360 SC.Related News

Where the two surveyors called by the parties are in conflict as to the identity of the disputed land, the proper thing to do is to call on independent surveyor agreed on by both parties. See Sanni  v. Ogunbode (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 714) 74 CA.

The court is not bound to accept the evidence of a surveyor on boundaries and description. It is sufficient if the parties know the land. See Yussuf v. Keinsi (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt 943) 554 .

A survey plan will not be necessary in a land case and can be dispensed with in the following cases: (a) where the land is properly described; (b) where there is no dispute as to the boundaries of the disputed land; and (c) where the parties are not in any doubt as regards the boundaries of the land. See C.G.C. (Nig) Ltd. v Baba (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 882) 658.

It has also been held that where in a land case, the area of the land in dispute is well known to both parties to the dispute, the requirement of proof of it does not arise, as the court cannot possibly reach a conclusion that the area claimed is not certain. See Osho v. Ape  (1998) 8NWLR (Pt 562)  492 at 495 SC

The claimant has a duty to prove the precise area to which his claim relates. The burden of doing this will not arise if the identity of the disputed land was never an issue.

The issue of the identity of the land in dispute arises only where the defendant raises it in his statement of defence and supported by evidence. See Dada v. Dosunmu (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 134) SC.

If there is a visit to the locus in quo in a land in dispute, the law and the practice of courts is that the court should bring with it all the parties in the case, giving them the opportunity to explain the nature and circumstances of the disputed land. See Azupkwu v. Oshasona (2005) 11  NWLR (Pt.937) 537 SC.

Where the evidence adduced  (oral and documentary) by the claimant and defendant are in agreement and settled as regards the identity of the disputed land, the fact that different names are given to the land or the place of the location of the land is not fatal to the claimant’s case. See Ogbu v. Wokoma (2005) 14 NWLR  (Pt.944) 118 SC.

In a claim for declaration of title, if the claimant should succeed in proving only the boundaries and title to a smaller parcel of such land, he would be entitled to a declaration of title as regards the smaller portion of the disputed land, the title and boundaries of which he has proved satisfactorily. See Ezeokonkwo v. Okeke (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt.777) 1.

If a claimant fails to establish the identity of the land on which his claim of ownership is based, any other piece of oral or documentary evidence, adduced in court cannot in law ground a declaration of title in his favour.  See Otanma v. Youdubagha (2006) 2NWLR (Pt.964) 337 SC.