LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Traditional History – Requirements for Pleading
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is not sufficient for a party who relies for proof of title to land on traditional evidence, as in the present case, to merely prove that he or his predecessor in title had owned and possessed the land from time immemorial. Such a party is bound to plead such facts as: (1) Who founded the land; (2) How the land was founded; and (3) Particulars of the intervening owner through whom he claims.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Alli & Anor v. Alesinloye & Ors (2000) NLC-961994(SC) at p. 13; Paras B–C.
"It is not sufficient for a party who relies for proof of title to land on traditional evidence, as in the present case, to merely prove that he or his predecessor in title had owned and possessed the land from time immemorial. Such a party is bound to plead such facts as: (1) Who founded the land; (2) How the land was founded; and (3) Particulars of the intervening owner through whom he claims."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party relying on traditional history to prove title must plead specific foundational facts. Mere assertion of ownership from time immemorial is insufficient. The pleading must identify: the founder of the land, how the land was founded, and the chain of intervening owners through whom the claimant derives title. These particulars enable the opposing party to respond meaningfully and the court to evaluate the tradition’s coherence. Failure to plead these essential elements may render the traditional evidence incapable of establishing title, as the case lacks the necessary factual foundation.