Burden of Proof: Competing Claims of Communal v Exclusive Customary Land Ownership

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the12th day of December, 2025

Before their Lordships

John Inyang Okoro

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju

Adamu Jauro

Jummai Hannatu Sankey

Obande Festus Ogbuinya

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/422/2017

Between

1. Bernard Ude

2. Boniface Okpara

3. Charles Adibe        Appellants

4. Ala Eze

(For themselves and on behalf of Umuagu Inyi)

               And

1. Charles Efobi

2. Hyacinth Igbo

3.EmmanuelNwofor

4. Sunday Madu       Respondents

(For themselves and on behalf of Umu Onara Ude)

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JSC)

Facts

The appeal arose from a land dispute between the parties, over a parcel of land known as Aguika land. The Appellants commenced an action against the Respondents before the Customary Court of Enugu State, seeking amongst other reliefs, an order mandating the sharing of the said Aguika Land among the UmuaguInyi community clans in the ration the court may deem necessary. The case of the Appellants was that the land was acquired by the conquest of the Nneoma People, after the clans of the UmuaguInyi Village waged a successful war against them to avenge the killing of the Respondents’ progenitor – Onara. The Appellants claimed that before the war, an oath was sworn that any booty recovered from the war would be shared equally amongst all the clans in UmuaguInyi. However, after the Aguika land was acquired, it was left unshared and reserved for communal farming, while the Respondents’ family was merely appointed as caretaker. They claimed that the land was owned commonly by all the clans in UmuaguInyi, but the Respondents later began claiming exclusive ownership.

 The Respondents concurred with the Appellants that the land in dispute was acquired by the conquest of the Nneoma People, however,q they denied taking any oath that the booty of war would be shared equally among all the UmuaguInyi clans. They claimed that another conquered parcel of land was given to participating warriors as compensation, while the Aguika land which was the actual place where Onara was murdered by the Nneoma People, was left to his children as their inheritance.

At the close of trial, the Customary Court (trial court) by a majority of 2:1 delivered judgement in favour of the Appellants, and granted all the reliefs sought. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed an appeal before the High Court of Enugu State, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction. The High Court of Enugu State set aside the trial court’s decision, and dismissed the Appellants’ claims. The Appellants’ subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful, as the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgement of the High Court of Enugu State. Aggrieved, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues for Determination

The Supreme Court adopted the issues formulated by the Appellants for the determination as follows:

i. Whether their Lordships of the Court below were not in grave error when they placed the burden of proof on the Appellants, in the face of the Respondents’ claim of exclusive ownership of the Aguika land, and thereby came to a perverse decision that the Appellants failed to prove that they own the land commonly with the Respondents? 

ii. Whether their Lordships of the Court below were right, when they held that the High Court of Enugu State, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, rightly interfered with the judgement of the trial Customary Court?

Arguments

On issue one, Counsel for the Appellants contended that the Court of Appeal erred in law, by placing the burden of proof on the Appellants. Counsel contended that where a party asserts exclusive ownership of a land against a community’s claim of communal ownership as in the instant case, the onus rested squarely on the party asserting exclusivity to prove it. In support of his submissions, Counsel relied on several judicial authorities, including UDEZE v CHIDEBE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT. 125) 141.

In response, Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Court of Appeal correctly placed the burden of proof on the Appellants being the party that approached the court with a claim, and the Appellants who sought judicial intervention failed to establish by evidence that the specific land in dispute was communally owned. Counsel distinguished the authorities cited by the Appellants and submitted that in those cases, communal ownership of the subject land had either been admitted or affirmatively established, which was not the case here.

On issue two, Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Court of Appeal erred in sanctioning the interference of the High Court of Enugu State with the findings of fact made by the trial Customary Court. Counsel argued that as the primary court that saw and heard the witnesses firsthand, the trial court was in the best position to evaluate credibility and assign probative value to the evidence. He maintained that an appellate court lacks the jurisdiction to disturb a trial court’s findings of fact, unless such findings are perverse, unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, or result in a miscarriage of justice. Counsel contended that the trial court’s findings were fully supported by the evidence on record and so were not perverse, thus the appellate courts’ interference was wholly unjustified.

In response, Counsel for the Respondents argued that both the High Court of Enugu State and the Court of Appeal, were right to set aside the decision of the trial court. Counsel submitted that the trial court’s finding that the Aguika land was communally owned, was perverse and unsupported by evidence, adding that the trial court improperly manufactured a case for the Appellants, by inventing a non-existent trustee status for the Respondents. He asserted that where the finding of a trial court is perverse or lacks evidentiary support, an appellate court is dutybound to re-evaluate the evidence and overturn the flawed conclusion. Counsel emphasised that the intervention of the High Court of Enugu State and the Court of Appeal was proper, because the trial court’s error went beyond the credibility of witnesses to the legal effect of undisputed facts. 

Counsel relied on AKINLAGUN & ORS v OSHOBOJA & ANOR (2006) 12 NWLR (PT. 993) 60 and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

On the 1st issue, the Supreme Court reiterated the trite position of the law that in civil cases, a party who asserts a claim and desires the court to give judgement in his favour as to any legal right being claimed, has the primary burden to prove it. The Court held that although this burden is not static and may shift in the course of the proceedings, depending on the state of the pleadings at any particular stage of the case, however, the fact still remains that the party who has approached the court to assert a claim, bears the initial burden to prove his claim. The Court relied on Sections 131, 132, and 133(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), and the case of AKINBADE v BABATUNDE (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1618) 366, 393–394.

The Apex Court held that, in essence, it was evident that the law unwaveringly placed the initial burden of proof on the Appellants who approached the trial court first seeking for the pronouncement of a legal right in their favour. The Court then proceeded to consider the Appellants’ argument that their case constituted an exception to the general rule, such that where a party claims exclusive ownership of communal land, the onus rests on that party to prove his exclusive ownership over the land, hence, in their case the primary burden of proof rested on the Respondents. The Supreme Court held that for this to apply, the land in question must first and foremost be shown to be communal land by the party alleging communal ownership, before the onus then shifts to the party claiming exclusive ownership of the land, to establish how the communal land or any part thereof, became vested exclusively on him. The Court held that for a Plaintiff to claim the benefit of the presumption that shifts the burden of proving exclusive ownership to the Defendant, the Plaintiff must as a condition precedent, first prove that the land in dispute is indeed, a communal land.

 The Court found that it was on record that the Respondents, right from inception, refuted the Appellants’ claim that the subject land is or has ever been communally owned at any point or that there was an oath taken to the effect that the spoils of war would be shared equally by the UmuaguInyi community. The Apex Court held that the Appellants who had approached the court asserting a claim of communal ownership failed to prove their claim, as the testimony of their key witness who presented himself as an eye witness to events leading to a tribal war that occurred over a thousand years ago, was incredible, farfetched and contradictory, as rightly noted by the President of the trial Customary Court in his dissenting judgement. The Supreme Court concluded that having failed to prove that the land in dispute is communal land, the Appellants cannot be entitled to the shifting of the onus of proof to the Respondents.

On the 2nd issue, the Supreme Court restated the settled position of law that an appellate court will not interfere with the findings of fact of a trial Court,  unless there was no evidence to support that finding or wrong conclusions were drawn from the evidence, in which case the finding will be found to be perverse. The Apex Court held that inasmuch as a trial court has a legal duty to properly evaluate evidence led on both sides before coming to a decision which must inevitably be based on the totality of the evidence properly appraised, where the trial court fails to discharge this onerous responsibility, it behoves the appellate Court to interfere.

The Court held that a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties at the trial court, clearly showed that the scales of justice heavily tilted in favour of the Respondents. The Apex Court referred to the various exhibits tendered before the trial court by the Respondents, including several judgements delivered in favour of one Mr Akabuogu, a member of the Respondents’ family in respect of the land in dispute; evidence of several acts of ownership exercised exclusively by the Respondents over time, such as letting portions of the land to tenants who identified only the Respondents as their landlord, single-handedly and successfully resisting an attempt by the Eastern Nigeria Development Corporation to trespass on the land; a register on tribute collection by the Respondents for use of the land 1969-1996 which also showed payment of tribute by the deceased 1st Plaintiff who was substituted with the 1st Appellant; and a newspaper publication as far back as February 1971 which depicted the Respondents as the owner of the land. The Court held that the Respondents adduced documentary evidence in support of their defence, which is superior evidence, as opposed to parole evidence, which is inferior evidence. The Court found that the avalanche of evidence adduced by the Respondents, both oral and documentary, dislodged the feeble, weak and unsubstantiated claims of the Appellants; and the High Court was right as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, to have interfered with and set aside the majority decision of the trial Customary Court, which was clearly perverse.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

P.M.B. Onyia with others for the Appellants 

Dr Peter Chidera Aneze for the Respondents

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)