LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Non-Suit — Non-Suit Not to Be Granted on Mere Technical Hitch Where Plaintiff Has Proved Entitlement
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a plaintiff fails to adduce sufficient evidence on a crucial point, and where the state of evidence does not entitle the defendant to judgment, the proper order is non-suit. If the court agrees that the plaintiffs proved their title to the entire land and exercised control over it, there is no legal basis for non-suit. The appellants are entitled to judgment.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Adelusola & Ors v. Akinde & Ors (2004) NLC-2592001(SC) at pp. 17–18; Paras D–B.
"Where a plaintiff fails to adduce sufficient evidence on a crucial point in the matter, and where the state of evidence does not entitle the defendant to judgment, the proper order to make is one of non-suit ... If the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial Judge, as it did, that the plaintiffs proved their title to the entire land shown on their survey plan and 'also produced credible evidence that they have exercised control over the land since they inherited it from their ancestor', there is, with respect, no legal basis for the order of non-suit. The appellants are entitled to judgment, as the learned trial Judge rightly held."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Non-suit is proper only where evidence is insufficient and neither party deserves judgment. Where the plaintiff has proved title and exercised control, non-suit has no legal basis. The principle applies to civil proceedings. A mere technical hitch cannot defeat a proven entitlement to judgment. The court must award judgment to the successful party. The rule prevents non-suit from being used to deny judgment where the plaintiff has proved the case.