ARO V. OBALORO

• Pages: 254-256

254



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

ARO V. OBALORO



5

CHIEF OMOLE ARO

V

CHIEF ADEOYE OBALORO

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

24th November 1967

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 53

9

/

1

965

10

15

Land Law - Declaration of title - Need for plaintiff to show that plan corresponds

with land claimed - Plan admitted without due proof - Other side not given

opportunity to cross-examine.



20

Practice and Procedure - Action in Customary Court - High Court on appeal

setting aside judgment in plaintiffs favour in Customary Court, dismissal

substituted - Whether proper order is dismissal or non- suit - Plaintiff litigating

same matter without success on two previous occasions - Whether enough to



25

preclude order of retrial.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether it is necessary for a plaintiff to prove that the plan he produces in Court

represents the land in dispute, over which a declaration is sought.



30

2.

Whether the mere fact that a plaintiff failed to prove his title to land in previous

litigation is sufficient by itself to preclude an order for a retrial.

FACTS:

The appellant, as plaintiff, instituted an action against the defendant/respond-

ent in the Grade 'B' Customary Court, for the Court, for ownership of land. At the



35

conclusion of hearing, the President of the Court ordered the Plaintiff to prepare

and submit a proper Survey Plan of the land in dispute within three months. The

President thereafter gave judgment for the Plaintiff and awarded the declaration

of title sought. The defendant appealed to the Grade `A' Customary Court com-

plaining that he had no opportunity to cross-examine on the Plan. The President



40

held that the Plaintiff's claim should have been dismissed, and ordered accord-

ingly. The Plaintiff then appealed to the High Court, which also dismissed the ap-

peal. The Plaintiff thus appealed to the Supreme Court, asking that an order for

retrial be given, before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

HELD:



45

1.

In a claim for declaration of title it is the duty of the Plaintiff, where he produces

a plan, to show that the plan produced represents the land in dispute, over

which the declaration of title is sought. However the Customary Court did not

advert to the necessity of getting the plan properly proved, as it should have

been.



50

2.

The President of the Grade A Customary Court, did not properly exercise his

jurisdiction in refusing to grant the Plaintiff a retrial, as one could see from the

record of proceedings that no evidence was taken as to the sufficiency or

otherwise of the plan.