LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Burden of Proof — Proof of Grant — Onus on Grantee Where Radical Title Conceded
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The defendant has conceded that the radical title over Anyankana land is in the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the burden shifted on the defendant to prove a grant by lease of the portion he claims.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC Itauma v. Akpe-Ime (2000) NLC-231995(SC) at p. 8; Paras. B–C.
"the defendant has conceded that the radical title over Anyankana land is in the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the burden shifted on the defendant to prove a grant by lease of the portion he claims."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where the plaintiff establishes or the defendant concedes that the plaintiff holds radical or original title to the land, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a derivative title—such as a grant, lease, or license—to justify possession. The defendant cannot simply rely on the plaintiff’s failure to prove their case. This reflects the shifting nature of evidential burden in civil proceedings. Once the plaintiff proves root of title, the defendant must adduce evidence of how they acquired rights from the plaintiff or through a superior chain of title.