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 interferenc

Read More