LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Traditional Evidence — Distinction Between Traditional Evidence and Evidence of Contemporary Events
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Traditional evidence is evidence beyond living memory. A story about a dispute taken before a district officer is not traditional evidence but evidence of contemporary history, which must be strictly proved in accordance with the laws of evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Ewo & Ors v. Ani & Ors (2004) NLC-621997(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras E–B.
"Traditional evidence is evidence beyond living memory. […] It is not every story which touches on the land in dispute that can be categorized as traditional evidence. The story about the dispute which is said to have been taken before the district officer is definitely not traditional evidence but evidence of contemporary history, histories of events which apparently happened within living memory and which have to be strictly proved in accordance with the laws of evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Traditional evidence is beyond living memory; contemporary events require strict proof. The principle applies to evidence law. The court distinguishes between the two categories. The rule ensures proper evidentiary treatment. Contemporary history must be proved like any other fact. The principle is well-established.