The Supreme Court of Nigeria has dismissed an appeal arising from a long-running customary land dispute in Enugu State, ruling that the claimants failed to establish that the disputed Aguika land was communally owned.

The case, SC/422/2017, involved Bernard Ude, Boniface Okpara, Charles Adibe and Ala Eze, representing Umuagu Inyi, as appellants, against Charles Efobi, Hyacinth Igbo, Emmanuel Nwofor and Sunday Madu, representing Umu Onara Ude, as respondents.

The five-member panel, presided over by Justices John Inyang Okoro, Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, Adamu Jauro, Jummai Hannatu Sankey and Obande Festus Ogbuinya, delivered its decision on December 12, 2025. Justice Jummai Hannatu Sankey delivered the lead judgment.

Background to the dispute

The disagreement centred on Aguika land, which both sides agreed had been acquired after the Umuagu Inyi clans defeated the Nneoma people in battle.

The appellants argued that the land became communal property after the war. They claimed that an agreement had been reached before the battle that any property recovered would be shared among the clans.

According to their account, Aguika land was subsequently reserved for communal farming, while members of the respondents’ family were only entrusted with its management.

The respondents disputed that account. Although they agreed that the land was obtained following the conflict, they denied that there had been an agreement to share the spoils equally.

They maintained that another parcel had been distributed to the warriors, while Aguika land was left to the descendants of Onara, whose death at the hands of the Nneoma people was central to the conflict.

How the case reached the Supreme Court

The appellants initially approached the Customary Court of Enugu State, asking for an order directing that Aguika land be shared among the Umuagu Inyi clans.

The Customary Court, by a 2-1 majority, ruled in their favour.

The respondents challenged that decision at the Enugu State High Court, which overturned the Customary Court's judgment and dismissed the appellants' claims.

The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the High Court's decision, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

Two principal questions were placed before the apex court: whether the lower courts wrongly placed the burden of proving communal ownership on the appellants, and whether the High Court was entitled to interfere with the findings made by the Customary Court.

Supreme Court's position on burden of proof

The Supreme Court rejected the appellants' argument that the respondents should have been required to prove exclusive ownership of the land.

The court reaffirmed the general principle that a person who approaches a court seeking recognition of a legal right must first establish the facts supporting that claim.

It relied on Sections 131, 132 and 133(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, as well as the decision in Akinbade v Babatunde (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 366.

The justices explained that the burden of proof can shift during proceedings, but the initial responsibility remains with the party making the claim.

In this case, the appellants were seeking a declaration that Aguika land was communal property. The court therefore held that they first had to prove that the land was indeed communally owned.

Only after that threshold had been established could the burden potentially move to the respondents to explain how exclusive ownership was acquired.

The Supreme Court found that the appellants failed to meet that requirement.

It noted that the respondents had consistently rejected the assertion that Aguika land was ever communal property and had also denied the alleged agreement to divide the spoils of war.

The apex court also questioned the reliability of evidence presented by one of the appellants' key witnesses, who claimed knowledge of events surrounding a conflict said to have occurred more than a thousand years earlier.

The court described the testimony as contradictory and implausible and agreed with the dissenting opinion at the trial court that the evidence was insufficient to establish communal ownership.

Why the appellate courts were right to intervene

The Supreme Court also considered whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Customary Court's findings.

It reiterated that appellate courts ordinarily do not disturb findings of fact made by a trial court, particularly because the trial court directly observes witnesses and assesses their credibility.

However, that protection is not absolute.

The apex court said intervention is permissible where findings are unsupported by evidence, unreasonable, or based on conclusions that cannot be sustained from the evidence before the court.

In the Aguika dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that the Customary Court's majority decision fell within that category.

The respondents had produced a range of documentary and oral evidence supporting their claim of exclusive ownership.

Among the materials considered were previous court judgments involving the land, evidence that members of the respondents' family had leased portions of the property to tenants, and records showing that they had acted as landlords.

The evidence also included the family's resistance to an attempted encroachment by the Eastern Nigeria Development Corporation, a tribute-collection register covering the period from 1969 to 1996, and a newspaper report published in 1971 that identified the respondents' family as owners of the property.

The Supreme Court considered the documentary evidence particularly significant, noting that it carried greater evidential weight than unsupported oral assertions in the circumstances of the case.

The court concluded that the respondents' evidence was substantially stronger than the appellants' case and supported the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Appeal dismissed

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decisions of the lower appellate courts.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a party seeking a declaration of communal ownership of customary land must first establish that communal ownership exists before asking the court to shift the burden onto a party claiming exclusive ownership.

It also underscores the circumstances in which an appellate court may intervene where a trial court's factual findings are unsupported by the evidence or are considered perverse.