LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Traditional history – Resolution of conflicts and application of the Kojo v. Bonsie principle
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there is a conflict in traditional evidence, the trial judge may discard the conflicting histories and apply the Kojo v. Bonsie principle by testing the conflicting versions against recent facts and acts of possession.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Ojobo v. Alam (1998) NLC-1101992(SC) at pp. 4–7; Paras A–C.
"But the question to ask now is – did the learned trial Judge find any conflict in the plaintiffs’ traditional history? … I would wish to state that on the facts of this case, this particular piece of evidence may not be absolutely at variance with the rest of the story told by the plaintiff and their witnesses as it appears on the surface. She (meaning P.W.4) stated that Aromona was the first to build on the land. This in effect may mean that she was the first to live there and as the first to live thereon, she was the first to settle on it. If this view is taken of the evidence, then there is no conflict in the evidence given by this witness (meaning P.W.4) and the other witnesses for the plaintiffs … Therefore as to the conflict in the evidence of P.W.4 with that of the other witnesses of the plaintiffs as well as the pleadings, I think the learned trial Judge was right in resolving that the evidence of P.W.4 was not completely at variance with the pleadings … The learned trial Judge was therefore right when he discarded the conflicting traditional histories of both sides and applied the principle enunciated in Kojo II v. Bonsie & Ors. (supra) and found in favour of the plaintiffs."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Kojo v. Bonsie principle tests conflicting traditional histories against recent facts. The trial judge may discard conflicting histories and rely on acts of possession. The principle applies to land disputes. The court will evaluate the evidence. The rule promotes rational resolution. The principle is well-established.