CUSTOMARY LAW — Proof of Native Law and Custom — Burden of Proof on the Pleader
Principle Statement
The only conclusion is that the land in the waterfront are in the exclusive ownership of the owner of the waterfront. This finding cannot be faulted. It is the only reasonable and natural conclusion from the state of the matters pleaded and the evidence in relation thereto.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per F. F. Tabai, JSC, in Ibuluya & Ors v. Dikibo & Ors (2010) NLC-1492001(SC) at p. 11; Paras D-E.
"The only conclusion is that the land in the waterfront are in the exclusive ownership of the owner of the waterfront. This finding cannot be faulted. It is the only reasonable and natural conclusion from the state of the matters pleaded and the evidence in relation thereto." The only conclusion is that the land in the waterfront are in the exclusive ownership of the owner of the waterfront. This finding cannot be faulted. It is the only reasonable and natural conclusion from the state of the matters pleaded and the evidence in relation thereto.
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the burden of proving native law and custom rests on the party who pleads it. The court draws reasonable conclusions from pleaded facts and evidence. The principle applies where customary law is in issue. It ensures that parties prove the custom they rely on. The principle reflects that custom must be proved like any other fact. It prevents courts from assuming customary law. The court must evaluate the pleadings and evidence. The principle provides guidance on proof of native law and custom.
