Do You Need A Survey Plan To Prove Land Ownership In Court? Lessons From The Supreme Court's Decision In Okoro v Udeh (2026) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2024) 163

Introduction

One of the key documents commonly tendered in court in land dispute proceedings is a survey plan. The advantage of a land survey plan is that it provides a precise description and clear identification of land by delineating its boundaries, location, and extent. For this reason, our courts have consistently recognised that the easiest way to identify a land in dispute is through a survey plan. This position was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Adekunjo v. Hussain (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1788) 434 (P. 453, paras. B-D).

However, there is a common legal misconception that ownership of land cannot be established in court without a survey plan. This misconception came to the fore in Okoro v Udeh (2026) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2024) 163, where both the Appellants and the Respondent raised the issue of whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the trial court's refusal to grant a declaration of title because no survey plan was produced. The case afforded the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify whether a survey plan was an indispensable requirement for proving land ownership.

Summary of the Facts of Okoro v Udeh

The Appellants commenced an action as the Administrators of the Estate of the late H. I. Okoro, their father, who died intestate (without a valid will) in 1982. They sought a declaration of title, damages for trespass, and an injunction against the Respondent in respect of a property at No. 38, Emole Street, Diobu, Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

At the trial, the Appellants' case was that their late father bought a property measuring 73 feet by 55 feet from one D.N. Oparaocha under a Deed of Conveyance dated 25^th August, 1964 (Exhibit P1), which showed the property to be between Nos. 36 and 40 Emole Street, Diobu, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. However, no survey plan was attached to or tendered with the Deed of Conveyance.

In its judgment, the trial court held that the Appellants were not entitled to a declaration of title because they did not tender a survey plan to establish their case and accordingly dismissed their claims.

Aggrieved, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which also affirmed the trial court's decision and dismissed their appeal. Therefore, the Appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Whether a Survey Plan Is Mandatory in a Claim for Declaration of Title to Land: The Supreme Court's Clarification

The Supreme Court clarified that, as a general principle of law, a survey plan was not required in all cases to succeed in an action for a declaration of title to land. The Court added that there are indeed circumstances in which the production of a survey plan may be dispensed with.

According to Umar JSC, at Page 192, Paragraphs C–E:

"Another bone of contention in this appeal is the necessity or otherwise of the appellants' tendering a survey plan to prove their case. As rightly stated by the learned silk for the appellant, the time-honoured position of the law is that a survey plan is dispensable where the identity of the land is not in dispute and is known to the parties."

Therefore, a survey plan is unnecessary in land cases where the identity of the land is not in dispute and is known to the parties.

However, the Supreme Court emphasised that this principle was not without limitation. The exception applies only where the dispute extends beyond mere location to include questions of the land's size, features, boundaries, or other conflicting descriptions. In such cases, a survey plan becomes necessary to resolve the uncertainty.

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's position above, the appeal failed, not entirely because a survey plan was absent but because the Appellants failed to prove their case against the Respondent, since the identity of the property was in dispute. The Supreme Court, per Umar, J.S.C., at Page 194 Paragraphs A-B, held as follows:

"Going by the state of pleadings highlighted above, it is my considered view that the identity of the property is in dispute and cannot be said to be known to the parties as to dispense with a survey plan. In the corollary, the general principle of law that a survey plan is dispensable where the identity of the property is not in dispute and is known to the parties is inapplicable to the facts of this case."

Key Takeaway from the Supreme Court's Decision in Okoro v Udeh

1. A survey plan is not required in every case to succeed in a land dispute.
2. Where the parties agree on the identity and location of the land, a survey plan may be dispensed with.
3. Conversely, where there is disagreement regarding the specifics of the land, such as its size or boundaries, a survey plan becomes indispensable in establishing a claim for declaratory relief to title.
4. A Claimant should never assume that the Defendant will not dispute the location or size of the property in dispute, as the Defendant's position would only become clear after it has filed its Statement of Defence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Okoro v Udeh makes it clear that the absence of a survey plan does not automatically defeat a claim to land ownership. While a survey plan remains a highly valuable piece of evidence, particularly where boundaries, dimensions, or other specifics are in dispute, it is not invariably required when the identity of the land is undisputed by the parties.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.