LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Traditional History – Acts of Possession Cannot Cure Failure to Prove Root of Title
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
If a party relies on and pleads a grant as his root of title, he must prove such grant. Where the radical title pleaded is not proved, it is not permissible to support a non-existent root of title with acts of possession or to substitute a failed root with acts of possession that could have derived from that root.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Ndukwe v. Acha (1998) NLC-2221991(SC) at p. 12; Paras C–E.
"If a party relies on, and pleads a grant as his root of title, he is under a duty to prove such grant to the satisfaction of the trial court… where the radical title pleaded is not proved, it is not permissible to support a non-existent root of title with acts of possession; it is not permissible to substitute a root of title that has failed with acts of possession which could have derived from that root."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party who pleads a specific root of title must prove it. Acts of possession cannot replace a failed root. The principle applies to derivative title claims. The plaintiff cannot switch to a different method of proof after failing to prove the pleaded root. The rule prevents parties from shifting their case. The court will not allow acts of possession to supply a missing grant. The principle ensures that parties are bound by their pleadings. The claim fails if the pleaded root is not proved. The rule is fundamental to land litigation.