LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Trespass – Possession Presumed in Favour of Party with Better Title
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Assuming without conceding that the respondents were not in physical possession of the disputed land, since the respondents have been shown to have a better title to the disputed land than the appellants, possession must be presumed in their favour. It is trite law that where both parties claim to be in possession, possession would be presumed in favour of the party who can show a better title.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Biariko v. Edeh-Ogwuile & Ors (2001) NLC-741996(SC) at p. 20; Paras D–A.
"Assuming without conceding that the respondents were not in physical possession of the disputed land, since the respondents have been shown to have a better title to the disputed land than the appellants, possession must be presumed in favour of their favour. It is trite law that where both parties claim to be in possession, possession would be presumed in favour of the party who can show a better title."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where both parties claim possession, the law presumes possession in favour of the party with better title. Physical possession is not required if title is proved. The presumption operates in favour of the title holder. The principle resolves conflicting possession claims. The party with better title is deemed in possession against a party with inferior title. The presumption is rebuttable but shifts the burden. The rule prevents trespassers from gaining advantage by physical occupation. The court does not require the title holder to prove actual possession. The presumption is based on legal ownership. The principle applies in trespass and injunction claims.