LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW — Proof of Title — Plaintiff’s Own Witness Contradicting Case — Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the plaintiff's own witness contradicts the plaintiff's pleaded case, the proper order is dismissal of the claim.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Nwadiogbu & Ors v. Nnadozie & Ors (2001) NLC-301997(SC) at p. 10; Paras C–E.
"The evidence of PW 1 was to prove the alleged acts of trespass pleaded in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim... This witness, as I have already shown, testified that: 'It was not on the land sold to the plaintiff that Enugwu-Ukwu Patriotic Union demolished a structure put on it....' This witness knew what he was talking about. He is a member of the Umugagwo family that allegedly sold the land to the plaintiff. The proper order at that stage should have been one of dismissal of the plaintiff's claim."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A plaintiff cannot rely on evidence from their own witness that directly contradicts the pleaded case. Such evidence undermines the plaintiff’s claim. The court may dismiss the claim even without considering the defendant’s case. The witness’s credibility is not the issue—the contradiction itself is fatal. The principle applies when the witness is favourable to the plaintiff or called by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot pick and choose which parts of the witness’s testimony to accept. If the witness’s evidence negates an essential element of the claim, the plaintiff fails to discharge the burden of proof. The proper order is dismissal, not non-suit.