LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Traditional Evidence — Conclusiveness of Traditional Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Traditional evidence is conclusive where the party traces and proves his title directly to the original owner whose title has been established. Where unable to trace title directly to the original owner, the traditional evidence is inconclusive, and additional proof under Ekpo v. Ita is required.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Morenikeji & Ors v. Adegbosin & Ors (2003) NLC-171999(SC) at pp. 42–43; Paras D–A.
"Traditional evidence is conclusive where the party raising it traced and proved his title directly to the original owner whose title has been established. Where, however, the plaintiff is unable to trace his title directly to the original owner whose title has been established, his traditional evidence is said to be inconclusive. Such a plaintiff will need the additional proof as laid down in Ekpo v. Ita (1932) 11 NLR 68 to sustain his claim to title."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Traditional evidence is conclusive only if direct tracing to known original owner is proved. The principle applies to land disputes. Inconclusive tradition requires acts of ownership evidence. The rule ensures that traditional claims are substantiated. The principle is well-established.