LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Documentary Evidence — Survey Plans — Discrepancies in Survey Plans — Whether Minor Overlaps Constitute Distinction Without Difference
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Minor overlaps in survey plans, particularly in the identification of boundaries, may occur as a matter of derailed accuracy by one party or as an attempt to create a distinction without a difference; such discrepancies may be attributable to the perspective from which the respective surveyors viewed the description of the land in dispute and do not necessarily invalidate the plans.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JCA (as adopted) Ito & Ors v. Ekpe & Ors (2000) NLC-61993(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras. E–A.
"The so called overlapping in two places referred to by the trial judge as the Western and Southern and also in the South Eastern Side occurred either as a matter of derailed accuracy by the plaintiffs or an attempt to create distinction without a difference by the defendants or vice-versa. It may be a matter bordering purely on the perspective from which the respective surveyors saw the description of the land in dispute."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Minor overlaps between competing survey plans do not automatically invalidate them. Such discrepancies may result from imprecise accuracy by a surveyor or a party’s attempt to exploit inconsequential differences—a “distinction without a difference.” Often, overlaps arise from the differing perspectives of surveyors interpreting boundary descriptions. Courts should examine whether the overlapping area is material to the core dispute. If trivial and immaterial, the discrepancies may be disregarded, preventing technicalities from derailing substantial justice in land disputes.