Relief

Indeed, the basic pecuniary entitlement of the plaintiff who suffers permanent disability as a result of fatal accident is the adequate sum representing his loss of earnings and loss of consortium. And under financial loss, loss of future earning capacity should be taken into consideration.

"Ordinarily, Courts enjoy equitable jurisdiction to award interest as an ancillary relief where money was either fraudulently obtained or withheld for no just reason. But where there is a contract between the parties, only such interest as made recoverable by the terms of the contract or the operation of law would be awarded to the judgment creditor.

It is settled law that a court cannot grant to a plaintiff a remedy which has not been claimed and established by the pleading and the evidence respectively. The Court has no power to do so. Thus a Court cannot grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed for.

It is settled law that a Court has no power to grant any relief that has not been specifically claimed by the parties – Think Ventures Limited Vs Spice and Regler Ltd (2021) 2 NWLR (Pt 1759) 114, Bakari Vs Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1768) 1, Offodile Vs Onejeme (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt 1775) 389. ​Counsel to the first and second Respondents suggested that the lower Court was correct to have granted the relief for the benefit of the male and female children of the family because the relief they claimed which limited the inheritance to only the male children was unconstitutional and repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience.
This suggestion of Counsel has no foundation in the law. The aphorism “the Court is not a Father Christmas” is a long standing principle of judicial adjudication. The Court and the parties are bound by the reliefs claimed and the Court cannot, on its own, begin to chop and change the reliefs claimed by a party and amend it to what it considers to be the proper relief to be granted – Tilley Gyado & Co (Nig) Ltd Vs Access Bank Plc (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt 1669) 399, Cappa & D’Alberto (Nig) Plc Vs NDIC (2021) LPELR-53379(SC). PER ABIRU, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
This is particularly more so as the first Respondent was claiming for declaration of ownership of an interest in land; that he is entitled to co-inherit the property in dispute with the third Respondent. It is settled law that in such a claim, the onus is entirely on the claimant and proof of the claim must be established. There must be strong and positive evidence to establish his title.
This is so, even if the defendant at the Court of trial admitted the claimant’s claim – Adeniji Vs Adeniji (1972) 4 SC 10, Ezeokonkwo Vs Okeke (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt 173) 331, Jimba Vs AP (Nig) Ltd (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt 581) 273, Temile Vs Awani (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt 728) 726.
In such matters, a defendant’s position is that even if he fails to adduce any evidence at all, he is entitled to judgment in his favour where a claimant fails to establish his claim for title by credible evidence; the defendant has no burden of proof – Umeojiako Vs Ezenamuo (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt 126) 253, Ezema Vs Ezeja (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt 419) 300, Dim Vs Enemuo (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt 1149) 353, Luke Vs Rivers State Housing and Property Development Authority (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt 1188) 604.
In an action claiming for a declaration of ownership of an interest in land, the onus is on the claimant to prove his case and until this is done no burden shifts to the defendant who is putting forward a different case of his own. Once the claimant has failed to establish his link with the disputed land, he has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him.
The law is that there is no burden on the defendant – Awomuti Vs Salami (1978) 3 SC 105, Olowosago Vs Adebanjo (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt 88) 275, Ajibona Vs Kolawole (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt 476) 22, Akanbi Vs Raji (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt 578) 360, Gbadamosi Vs Okege (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt 1233) 175.
Where the defendant does not counterclaim in such an action, as in the present case, the onus is on the claimant to first establish a prima facie case before consideration of the case of the defendant can arise – Aromire Vs Awoyemi (1972) 1 SC 1, Nwofor Vs Nwosu (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 229, Oyedeji Vs Oyeyemi (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt 1084) 484, Iroagbara Vs Ufomadu (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt 1153) 587, Nwokidu Vs Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt 1181) 362. It is after the claimant has proved his claim satisfactorily that the onus shifts – Kopek Construction Ltd Vs Ekisola (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt 1182) 61. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.