LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PROPERTY LAW – Declaration of Title – Onus on Plaintiff Admitting Original Ownership of Defendant
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
With the plaintiff's admission that original ownership was in the defendant's family, unless they could show that the family had divested itself of title in favor of plaintiff's predecessor, the defendant's counter-claim would be unimpeachable.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"With the plaintiff's admission of this fact, unless he could show that the Obawole Aina Arupe family had divested itself of title to the land in favour of J.K. Coker, the defendants' counter-claim would be unimpeachable."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When a plaintiff admits original ownership was in the defendant (or their family), this creates a presumption of continuing ownership. The plaintiff then bears the burden of proving divestiture—that defendant’s family conveyed, sold, or otherwise transferred title to plaintiff’s predecessor. Without proving divestiture: defendant’s original ownership continues (possession and title presumed to continue), and defendant’s counter-claim for declaration of title succeeds. This reflects the principle: once ownership is established, it’s presumed to continue unless divestiture is proved. The admission is powerful—plaintiff cannot then claim title without showing how title passed from defendant’s family to plaintiff’s line. Divestiture must be affirmatively proved through: conveyance documents, sale evidence, gift proof, or adverse possession. Mere claims of purchase without documentary or testimonial proof are insufficient. The principle protects established ownership against unsupported claims