EVIDENCE LAW — Burden of Proof — Land Transaction Under Native Law and Custom — Party Must Prove Title on Strength of Own Case
Principle Statement
The position of the law is that it is incumbent on a party in a claim for title to land to plead and prove his title to the land he is claiming, and the burden of proof does not shift until he has satisfactorily proved what he has in his pleading and cannot rely on the weakness of the case of the defendant. It is after the plaintiff has proved his claim satisfactorily that the onus shifts.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per A.M. Mukhtar, JSC, in Kopek Construction Ltd v. Ekisola (2010) NLC-123-213-2002(SC) at p. 18; Paras A—C.
"The position of the law is that it is incumbent on a party in a claim for title to land to plead and prove his title to the land he is claiming, and the burden of proof does not shift until he has satisfactorily proved what he has in his pleading and cannot rely on the weakness of the case of the defendant. It is after the plaintiff has proved his claim satisfactorily that the onus shifts."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that in land title claims, the plaintiff must prove title on the strength of their own case; the burden does not shift until the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved their claim. The principle applies where title is claimed. It ensures that plaintiffs cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case. The principle reflects that the burden is on the plaintiff. It prevents plaintiffs from shifting the burden prematurely. The court must require the plaintiff to prove their case. The principle provides guidance on the burden of proof in title claims.
