LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Proof of Title – Onus on Plaintiff to Prove Root of Title Pleaded
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The law is well settled that once a party pleads and traces his root of title in an action involving title to land to a particular person or source, and this averment, as in the present case, is disputed or challenged, that party, to succeed, as a plaintiff in the suit must not only establish his own title to such land, he must also satisfy the court on the validity of the title of that particular person or source from whom he claims to have derived his title.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Olohunde & Anor v. Adeyoja (2000) NLC-151995(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–B.
"The law is well settled that once a party pleads and traces his root of title in an action involving title to land to a particular person or source, and this averment, as in the present case, is disputed or challenged, that party, to succeed, as a plaintiff in the suit must not only establish his own title to such land, he must also satisfy the court on the validity of the title of that particular person or source from whom he claims to have derived his title."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When a plaintiff traces title to a particular grantor or source and the root is challenged, the plaintiff must prove the grantor’s title, not merely the grant. The maxim nemo dat quod non habet applies. The plaintiff must establish the validity of the source’s title. Failure to prove the grantor’s title breaks the chain. The plaintiff cannot acquire better title than the grantor possessed. The burden includes proving how the grantor acquired the land. The rule protects true owners from defective derivative claims. The plaintiff’s own title is insufficient without proving the grantor’s title. The chain must be complete and valid.