LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Proof of Title to Land — Five Methods — Independence of Methods
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Each of the five ways of proving title to land is independent of the other. Where a party's case is based on production of documents of title, it is a misdirection to insist additionally that such party must also prove acts of exclusive possession extending over a long time.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, adopting Nwosu v. Udeaja (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 188 at 218, in Thompson & Anor v. Arowolo (2003) NLC-1351998(SC) at p. 60; Paras A–C.
"It is now well settled that each of the five ways of proving title to land (traditional evidence; production of documents of title duly authenticated; acts of possession and ownership extending over a sufficient length of time; acts of long possession and enjoyment; proof of possession of connected or adjacent land) is independent of the other. Where a party's case is based on production of documents of title, it is a misdirection to insist additionally that such party must also prove acts of exclusive possession extending over a long time."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The five methods of proving title are independent. A party need only prove one. The principle applies to land disputes. It is a misdirection to require additional methods. The rule promotes efficiency. The principle is well-established.