LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CUSTOMARY LAW – Proof of Custom – Traditional History – Minor Inconsistencies in Genealogical Evidence – Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Whichever way it was, the plaintiffs claim to descend from the two whether one was the father or son; such lapses are not unusual in traditional history where we have absence of written records and parties depend on oral accounts passed from generation to generation; the case perhaps would have been different if the witness did not mention either name but other names entirely different; Falsa Demonstration Non Nocet, Cum De Corpore Constat.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Whichever way it was, the plaintiffs claim to descend from the two whether Aso or Odede was the father or son. Such lapses are not unusual in traditional history where we have absence of written records and parties depend on oral accounts passed from generation to generation. The case perhaps would have been different if PW2 did not mention Aso or Odede but other names entirely different. Falsa Demonstration Non Nocet, Cum De Corpore Constat."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Minor genealogical inconsistencies don’t defeat traditional history. Here: confusion about whether Aso or Odede was father/son—but plaintiffs claimed descent from both, just unclear on relationship. “Not unusual” means: expected in oral tradition, understandable given: no written records, reliance on passed-down accounts, and generations of transmission. Key distinction: Minor lapse (confusion about father/son relationship but naming same ancestors)—acceptable. Material error (naming completely different persons)—would be fatal. Latin maxim: “Falsa Demonstration Non Nocet, Cum De Corpore Constat” = false description does not harm when the body/substance is clear. Applied here: relationship description wrong but persons identified correctly—substance (descent from these ancestors) is clear despite descriptive error. This serves: realistic traditional history assessment, recognizing oral tradition limitations, and focusing on substance over technical precision. Courts should: expect minor inconsistencies in oral genealogies, not reject tradition for understandable lapses, and assess whether core claim (descent line) is established despite imprecision. What matters: Essential facts (descent from named ancestors, land transmission through line), not perfect precision in relationships. However: completely different names would indicate unreliability—suggests invented history or confused claims. This principle applies realistic standards to traditional evidence, acknowledging inherent imprecision while requiring substantial accuracy on material facts.