LAND LAW ā Proof of Title ā Where Traditional Histories Conflict, Recent Acts of Ownership Determine Probability
Principle Statement
Where traditional histories given by both sides are plausible but conflicting, the court cannot simply prefer one side. To determine which history is more probable, courts apply the Kojo II v. Bonsie principle: preference depends on recent acts of ownership and possession shown by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Ezukwu v. Chukwu & Anor (2004) NLC-1602000(SC) at p. 14; Paras DāE.
"However, such evidence of acts of ownership and long possession becomes relevant where the traditional histories given by both sides though plausible, are in conflict. In such a situation, it will not be open to the court simply to prefer one side to the other. To determine which of the histories is more probable the courts have called in aid the principle enunciated in the celebrated case of Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223 which is to the effect that the preference of one history to the other as being more probable would depend on recent acts of ownership and possession shown by the parties that the court would need to consider to make up its mind."
Explanation / Scope
Conflicting but plausible traditional histories are resolved by examining recent acts of ownership and possession. The court cannot arbitrarily prefer one history. The principle applies to land law. The rule follows the Kojo v. Bonsie principle. Recent acts test the probability of competing traditional accounts. The party with stronger recent possession and acts of ownership normally prevails.
