"The case of the appellant being basically declaratory the burden of proof rested solely on him and none on the respondents and the success of the appellant's case rested on its strength which as in the case at hand being of a weak nature falls without redemption. It calls to mind the dictum of this Court in the case of Nyesom v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 451 at 535 wherein this Court held as follows:"Both Tribunal and the Court below made much of the fact that witnesses called by the appellant were discredited under cross-examination and therefore their evidence was unreliable, which therefore gave rather impetus to the case of the 1st and 2nd respondents. It will be recalled that the 1st and 2nd respondents sought declaratory reliefs before the Tribunal. The law is that where a party seeks declaratory reliefs, the burden is on him to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence (if any). Such reliefs will not be granted, even on admission." (Emphasis supplied). See also CPC v INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 393 at 560; Vincent I. Bello v Magnus Eweka (1981) 1 SC 101; Motunwase v Sorungbe (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 92) 90 at 102."

Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C In OZOMGBACHI v. AMADI & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45152(SC)