LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Non-Suit — Non-Suit Inappropriate Where Plaintiff Has Proved Title to Land in Dispute
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A non-suit is appropriate where there is no satisfactory evidence enabling the court to give judgment to either of the parties and wronging neither. Since both courts below had decided that the plaintiffs/appellants established their title to the land in dispute, an order of non-suit cannot be justified.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Adelusola & Ors v. Akinde & Ors (2004) NLC-2592001(SC) at p. 14; Paras A–B.
"A non-suit is appropriate where there is no satisfactory evidence enabling the court to give judgment to either of the parties and wronging neither ... Since both courts below had decided that the plaintiffs/appellants established their title to the land in dispute, an order of non-suit cannot be justified."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Non-suit is only appropriate where the court cannot give judgment to either party due to insufficient satisfactory evidence. Once the plaintiff has proved title to the land, an order of non-suit cannot be justified. The principle applies to civil proceedings, especially land disputes. The court must enter judgment for the successful party. The rule prevents non-suit where the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof. A finding of title entitles the plaintiff to judgment, not non-suit.