Declaratory Reliefs

In an action of this nature, where the appellant, as plaintiff, seeks declaratory reliefs, he has the burden of satisfying the Court that he is entitled to those reliefs. He must rely on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the defence, if any. He may not even rely on any lapses or inadequacies in the defence. See: Dumez Nig. Ltd. Vs Nwakhnoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt 1119) 361: Emenike vs P.D.P (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt.1315) 556; Okoye vs Nwankwo (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1429) 93.

It is also settled that in an action such as the instant one, in which declaratory reliefs are sought, admission on the part of a defendant will not, by itself and independent of the case made out by the claimant, entitle the latter to judgment. Being a discretionary remedy, it is granted only where the Court is satisfied that, from his statement of claim and the evidence adduced in support, the claimant has a very strong and cogent case. The claimant must, therefore, satisfy the Court that on his own he is fully entitled to the grant of the reliefs. He succeeds wholly on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the case proffered in defence to his claim. See Kodilinye V. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336, Bello V. Emeka (1981) 1 SC 101, CBN V. Amao & 2 Ors (2010) 5-7 SC (Pt 1) 1 at 31 and Dumez (Nig) Ltd V. Nwakhoba (2008) 12 SCNJ 768. In Utih V. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt 166).

Appellant's claim is evidently for declaratory reliefs which are not granted as a matter of course and on a Platter of gold. A declaratory relief is only granted in consequence of a finding of fact made by the Court. Thus in the absence of sufficient evidence to make the finding of fact that must precede the grant of the relief, the Court will not exercise its discretion to grant the relief.