LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Proof of Title to Land – Acts of Ownership – Inference of Ownership
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a party relies on evidence of traditional history, and, in the alternative, on acts of ownership to prove the title he claims the court is entitled to proceed on an inquiry into the question whether a party has proved acts of ownership over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to lead to an inference that he is the owner of the land.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Damini & Anor v. Abraham & Ors (2001) NLC-2021994(SC) at p. 6; Paras A–B.
"Where a party relies on evidence of traditional history, and, in the alternative, on acts of ownership to prove the title he claims the court is entitled to proceed on an inquiry into the question whether a party has proved acts of ownership over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to lead to an inference that he is the owner of the land."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party may rely on traditional history and, alternatively, on acts of ownership. The court may inquire whether the party proved acts of ownership over sufficient time, numerous and positive enough to infer ownership. Acts of ownership include using, occupying, farming, selling, leasing, or exercising control over the land. The acts must be open, notorious, and consistent with ownership. The length of time depends on circumstances—no fixed period. The inference of ownership arises from the cumulative effect of the acts. The court evaluates the quality and quantity of acts. The party need not prove both traditional history and acts of ownership—either can suffice. The alternative reliance strengthens the case.