LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Proof of Title — Traditional History Distinguished from Evidence of Possession
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Evidence of possession is separate from and independent of a claim of title based on traditional history; the two are distinct methods of proving title.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Onwuama v. Ezeokoli (2002) NLC-1721996(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras E–A.
"I think the submission that evidence of traditional history was led is erroneous. What was led by either side was evidence of possession which is one of the ways of asserting title to land and is regarded as separate from and independent of claim of title based on traditional history."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Traditional history and evidence of possession are distinct methods of proving title. A party may rely on one or both. Evidence of possession is not evidence of traditional history. The court must distinguish between the two. The principle applies to land disputes where parties rely on multiple methods. The plaintiff may succeed on acts of possession even if traditional history is not proved. The court will not confuse the two methods. The rule ensures that the court properly evaluates each method. The party relying on possession must adduce evidence of numerous and positive acts over time. The principle promotes clarity in land litigation.
CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE
None recorded.