Onus of Proof

The established legal position is that the onus of proving negligence is on the plaintiff who alleges it and unless and until that is proved, it does not shift. In other words where a plaintiff pleads and relies on negligence by conduct or action of the defendant, he or she must prove by evidence the conduct or action and the circumstances of its occurrence, giving rise to the breach of the duty of care. It is only after this that the burden shifts to the defendant to adduce evidence to challenge negligence on his part.
And what amounts to negligence is a question of fact not law and each case must be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances.

The established legal position is that the onus of proving negligence is on the plaintiff who alleges it and unless and until that is proved, it does not shift. In other words where a plaintiff pleads and relies on negligence by conduct or action of the defendant, he or she must prove by evidence the conduct or action and the circumstances of its occurrence, giving rise to the breach of the duty of care. It is only after this that the burden shifts to the defendant to adduce evidence to challenge negligence on his part.
And what amounts to negligence is a question of fact not law and each case must be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances.

As pointed out by the learned trial Judge, in an action for declaration of title to land, the claimant has the primary duty to prove clearly and unequivocally the precise area to which his claim relates citing the case of Ijade v. Ogunyemi (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt.470) 17. In this case, that burden did not arise because the identity of the land is not in dispute.In a claim of declaration of title to land, the onus is on the claimant, and he must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence See: Bello v. Eweka (1981) 1 SC 101; Okpala v. Ibeme (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.102) 208.