CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Grant as Root of Title — Duty to Prove Grant by Credible Evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Per Oputa, JSC, in Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 15 N.S.C.C. 711 at pp. 731; Paras A–D, cited in Yusuf v. Adegoke & Anor (2007) NLC-123-15-2002(SC):
"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. Other evidence of acts of possession after the grant will merely go to strengthen the grant. But where, as in this case, the proof of the grant is inconclusive, the bottom is knocked out of the plaintiff/appellant's claim. When his root ceases to stand, the stem and branches will fall with the root. In other words, where the radical title pleaded is not proved, it is not permissible to support a non-existent root with acts of possession; it is not permissible to substitute a root of title that has failed with acts of possession which should have derived from that root."
Explanation / Scope
The root of title is the foundation upon which a claim to land rests. If the foundation fails, all derivative claims—including acts of possession, improvement, or enjoyment—cannot sustain the case. A plaintiff cannot rely on possessory acts independent of the pleaded grant, as those acts derive their legal significance from the grant itself. This principle prevents a party from shifting ground mid-litigation from a failed grant to mere possession.