“The Evidence Act Section 145 provides that- “When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner”, but more is needed than would support a claim for trespass, and the section has never been treated as modifying the well-known rule laid down in Ekpo v. Ita 11 N.L.R. 68, as explained in Abudulai v. Manue (1945) 10 W.A.C.A. 172, that a person relying on circumstantial evidence in support of a claim for declaration of title to land must prove “acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference” that he is the exclusive owner. The facts proved in the case of Onyekaonwu v. Ekwubiri S.C.278/1964-14. 1. 66-were held to be such as to make the section applicable, but the judgement expressly accepts Ekpo v. Ita as stating the principle of law correctly.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
