LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Traditional History — Internal Conflict — Effect on Claim for Declaration of Title
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a party's evidence of traditional history conflicts with his pleaded root of title, he has failed to make out his case; the claim must be dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Muhammad, JCA (as he then was), adopted by Uwaifo, JSC, in Adeleke v. Asani & Anor (2002) NLC-931997(SC) at p. 18; Paras A–B.
"The evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses conflict with his root of title pleaded. A party who adduces conflicting histories of his ownership in support of his claim, has failed to make out the case he set out to make. His claim must be dismissed."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party’s traditional history evidence must be consistent with the pleaded root of title. Internal conflicts or contradictions between the evidence and the pleadings are fatal. The party has failed to make out the case pleaded. The claim must be dismissed. The principle ensures that parties are bound by their pleadings. The court will not accept conflicting accounts of ownership. The party cannot succeed if the evidence does not support the pleaded case. The rule applies to land disputes and other claims based on traditional history. The party must present a coherent and consistent account. The court will not reconcile fundamental contradictions.