EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON NEED FOR CLAIMANT TO PLEAD AND LEAD EVIDENCE ON ROOT OF HIS TITLE TO LAND AS SHOWN IN HIS INSTRUMENT OF TITLE
A claimant who produces what he claims to be an instrument of grant, is not automatically entitled to the declaration of title sought over the property which such instrument purports to grant, particularly when such grant is contested by the adverse party. To succeed therefore, the claimant has to plead and lead evidence on the root of his title giving rise to that instrument.
In the instant case, the respondent tendered exhibit “L” which is a registered Deed of Conveyance to support his claim and also pleaded that the land was granted to him according to Owanta Native Law and Custom.
[Nruama v. Ebuzoeme (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 217; Ibenye v. Agwu (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 372 referred to.]
(Pp. 381-382, paras. H-B)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON DUTY ON CLAIMANT CLAIMING TITLE TO LAND UNDER NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM
In order to establish a grant or transfer, the claimant must plead and adduced evidence that the land was transferred or granted in the presence of witnesses and the claimant put into possession. To prove that, the claimant must plead the names of those witnesses who should be called to testify. In essence, it is not sufficient for a party or claimant seeking to establish title to land under native law and custom to present a Deed of Conveyance or purchase receipt alone.
He must lead evidence to establish the fact of the grant and the actual handing over of possession in the presence of witnesses who should also testify to that effect.
In the instant case, the appellants pleaded the root of the title of the 1st appellant to the land in dispute through traditional history.
They equally testified and called two witnesses who corroborated their testimony on that root of title.
This was not contradicted by the respondent.
[Okonkwo v. Okolo (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 79) 632; Adedeji v. Oloso (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt.1026) 133; Agboola v. U.B.A. Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375; Kopek Construction Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618 referred to.]
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON BINDINGNESS OF PLEADINGS ON PARTIES AND COURT
Civil cases are decided on the pleadings. Therefore, parties are bound by their pleadings. Accordingly, any evidence led on facts not pleaded, will go to no issue. A claimant will rise or fall on the strength of his pleadings and evidence led in support thereof. Once pleadings are ordered, filed and exchanged, the parties and the courts are bound by the pleadings so filed. It therefore follows remorselessly that, evidence must be led in accordance with the pleadings. Evidence led not in conformity with the pleadings, and/or upon facts not pleaded, went to no issue.
[Airoe & C.E. Co. Ltd. v. University of Benin (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 287; Chukuwumah v. Shell Petroleum (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512; Jiaza v. Bamigbose (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 182; Nsirim v. Onuma Const. Co. (Nig.) Ltd. (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt.713) 742; Soyanya v. Onadeko (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt.926) 185; Eze v. Atasie (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 470 referred to.]
(P. 380, paras. C-G)
ON HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS ADMISSION OF FACTS IN PLEADINGS
In determining whether or not there is an admission in pleadings, the court has the duty to examine the entire pleadings of a party.
In this case, the appellant’s entire statement of defence does not contain an express admission of the respondent’s case.
[Okoye v. Nwankwo (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 93; Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386; N.N.P.C. v. Roven Shipping Ltd. (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 67 referred to.]
(P. 367, paras. A-C)
NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH .v. PRINCE OLUSUNMADE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 183
ON HOW TO DETERMINE CASE BY PARTY
In determining the case made by a party, a court must read all the paragraphs of the pleadings of the party together to get a flowing story of the party and not a few paragraphs in isolation and it is the totality of the pleadings that states the case of the party.
ACMEL (NIG.) LTD. V. F.B.N. PLC [2024] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1924) 1
ON HOW TO PLEAD CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
A claimant for specific performance of a contract must set forth facts to show that the breach of the contract cannot be adequately compensated for in damages. This is so because specific performance would not be decreed if the claimant would be adequately compensated by the common law remedy of damages. [Afrotech Technical Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. MIA & Sons Ltd. ((2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.692) 730; International Textile Industries Nigeria Ltd. v. Aderemi (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 268 referred to.] (Pp. 41-42, paras. F-B).
ADEYEMI V. A.P.C. (2024) 4 NWLR (PT. 1927) 63
ON WHAT CONSTITUTES PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLEADINGS IN CASE COMMENCED BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS
In a case fought by originating summons, the declarations sought and questions posed to the court for determination constitute the pleadings while the affidavit in support of the summons and the exhibits attached thereto constitute the evidence in support of the pleadings. (P. 116, para. D).
ANTONIO OIL CO. LTD. V. AMCON (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 215
ON PURPOSE OF PLEADINGS AND BINDINGNESS OF ON PARTIES
Litigation is fought on pleadings of the parties as it forms the foundation upon which the case is built till judgment. The success or the failure of every case is derived from pleadings. It follows therefore, that a party swims or sinks with his pleadings. Parties are bound by their pleadings. Pleadings are not only meant to give the other side notice of the case they are to meet at the trial, they also define the parameters of the case. The basic rule of pleading is that every pleading must contain only a statement of material facts which a party to an action relies on and not the evidence by which they are to be proved. It is certain that the plaintiff needs to plead material facts in his pleading and it is up to the defendant in the case to admit or traverse those facts. It is very fundamental to highlight that a fact which is admitted by the defendant in his pleadings needs not be proved by the plaintiff, but should be deemed as established at the trial. [Ajuwon v. Akanni (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 316) 182; Nwokorobia v. Nwosu (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 553; Akande v. Adisa (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 538; Anyafulu v. Meka (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1406) 396 referred to.] (Pp.238-239, paras. H-D).
ANTONIO OIL CO. LTD. V. AMCON (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 215
ON NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS IN LITIGATION
Pleadings are a statement of candour as to what a party to a case relies on to prove or defend a cause. They ought to be made as clear as they possibly can, not evasive or misleading or ambiguous. Each party must endeavour to place, and must be presumed to have placed, all necessary pleadable acts on record the best way it can in order to achieve the best of its case. It must put the other party and the court on a firm understanding of what the issues joined or denied, or issues admitted or not admitted. Pleadings are the guiding light by which all concerned trace the path to the justice of a case. That path should not be hampered by and littered with stumbling blocks of uncertainties, misrepresentations and ambushes embedded in the averments. That will be an effort to spring surprises and will not be proper pleading. Pleadings are not to be considered as constituting a game of skill between the advocates. They ought to be so framed as not only to assist the party in the statement of his case but the court in its investigation of the truth between the litigants. It is an essential fact that anyone filing a suit in court must surely be armed with the facts he wants to deploy in making the case or in defending the case. [Ifeanyi Chukwu Osondu Co. v. Akhigbe (1999) 11NWLR (Pt. 625) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 239-240, paras. D-B).
ANTONIO OIL CO. LTD. V. AMCON (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 215
ON EFFECT OF GENERAL TRAVERSE OF SPECIFIC AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS
Averments which are generally denied in situations where specifics are required, do not amount to a proper traverse of the case of the other party and they rather amount to an admission of the case of the other party. For a traverse in pleadings to amount to a denial, it must be explicit; unequivocal and should not leave anyone in doubt as to the intention sought to be portrayed. A general denial of specific allegation of clear facts is an evasive denial and is no denial in law. [Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Chimaeze (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 166; Okpala v. Okeke (2014) LPELR-24637 referred to.] (P. 256, paras. E-H).
ANTONIO OIL CO. LTD. V. AMCON (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 215
ON EFFECT OF GENERAL TRAVERSE OF SPECIFIC AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS
A general denial in law amounts to an admission. Such general denial or traverse without more do not amount to a denial but is deemed to be an admission. A general traverse is not enough to controvert material and important averments in pleadings particularly where the claim is one in debt or liquidated demand in money. This is why the Law requires that essential and material allegation in a plaintiffs pleading, should not be reacted to in a statement of defence by a general denial or traverse, of averments in the plaintiff’s statement of claim that can meaningfully give rise to an issue or give rise to an issue in a claim by the plaintiff. Thus, essential allegations in a pleading or affidavit, which are not specifically traversed are deemed admitted by the adverse party. In the face of specific and detailed allegations of facts, a denial of those facts must also be specific. [Danladi v. Dangari (2015) 2NWLR (Pt. 1442) 124, U.B.A. v. Davandy Finance & Securities Ltd (2015) LPELR-25769; Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) 370; Ajibulu v.Ajayi (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1392) 483; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Chimaeze (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411)166 referred to.] (Pp. 256-257, paras. E-H).
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON WHEN UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT CAN BE PLEADED AND ADMISSIBLE
A purchaser of land or a lessee in possession of the land by virtue of a registrable instrument which has not been registered and has paid the purchase money or the rent to the vendor or lessor in either case has acquired an equitable interest in the land which is as good as a legal estate. The equitable interest can only be defeated by a purchaser of the land for value without notice of the prior equity. A registrable instrument which has not been registered is admissible to prove such equitable interest and prove payment of purchase of money or rent. [Okoye v. Dumez (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 783; Oni v. Arimoro (1973) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 189; Adesanya v. Aderonmu (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.672) 370; Agwunedu v. Onwumere (1994) 1 NWLR(Pt. 321) 375; Edokpolo & Co. Ltd. v. Ohenhen (1994)7 NWLR (Pt. 358) 511; Anyabunsi v. Ugwunze (1995)6 NWLR (Pt. 401) 255; Etajata v. Ologbo (2007) 16NWLR (Pt. 1061) 554; Zacala v. Edosa (2018) 6NWLR (Pt. 1616) 528; Agboola v. UBA (2011) 11.
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON WHEN UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT CAN BE PLEADED AND ADMISSIBLE
An unregistered registrable instrument is not unpleadable and inadmissible for all purposes. Where it reflects the payment of money by the grantee or purchaser and the receipt of the payment by the grantor or vendor, it can be pleaded and is admissible as a purchase receipt. Where the payment of the purchased price is coupled with a continuous possession of the land by the purchaser, an unregistered registrable instrument is admissible to prove equitable interest in land. [Ole v. Ekede (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 187) 569; Tewogbade v. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 338) 326; Awaogbo v. Eze (1995)1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 393; Ogunjumo v. Ademolu (1995)4 NWLR (Pt. 389) 254; Ezeogu v. Onwuchekwa (1997)4 NWLR (Pt. 502) 689; Mojekwu v. Mojekwu (1997)7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 283; Okafor v. Soyemi (2001) 2NWLR (Pt. 698) 465; Igbum v. Nyarinya (2001) 5NWLR (Pt. 707) 554.