LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Native Court Judgments – Effect When Not Tied to a Plan
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When in a subsequent suit in which the judgment should have been useful it turns out that a plan produced as a purported reflection of the judgment cannot be related to the features and the boundaries of the land, the subject of the previous suit, the previous judgment though valid, becomes unavailing.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, adopting Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC in Adomba v. Odiese (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.125) 165 at 181, in Ikeni & Anor v. Efamo & Ors (2001) NLC-991997(SC) at p. 15; Paras B–C.
"When in a subsequent suit in which the judgment should have been useful it turns out that a plan produced as a purported reflection of the judgment cannot be related to the features and the boundaries of the land, the subject of the previous suit, the previous judgment though valid, becomes unavailing."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A valid Native Court judgment becomes unavailing if the plan produced as its reflection cannot be related to the features and boundaries of the land in the previous suit. The judgment may be valid, but without a reliable plan linking it to the disputed land, it cannot be used as evidence of title. The party seeking to rely on the judgment must show that the land in the current dispute is the same as in the previous judgment. If the plan is unreliable or cannot be matched to ground features, the judgment is useless for proving title. The principle prevents reliance on judgments that cannot be tied to specific land. The burden is on the party relying on the judgment to establish the connection.
