LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Customary Law — Proof of Customary Law Does Not Require Corroboration
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
While it could be desirable that a person other than the person asserting the customary law should testify in support, it is not a desideratum. Section 14(1) merely provides that a custom can be proved to exist by evidence. Evidence can be led by a single witness or more witnesses.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Usiobaifo v. Usiobaifo & Anor (2005) NLC-2542000(SC) at p. 8; Paras B–C.
"While it could be desirable that a person other than the person asserting the customary law should testify in support of the customary law, it is not a desideratum. This is because the Evidence Act does not so provide. And here, section 14(1) provides the anchor. The subsection merely provides that a custom 'can be proved to exist by evidence'. And evidence can be led on the existence of the custom by a single witness or more witnesses. It is not my understanding of the law that a village or community of witnesses must be called to satisfy the provision of section 14(1)."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Proof of customary law under section 14(1) does not require corroboration or multiple witnesses. A single witness can suffice to prove a custom. The principle applies to evidence law and customary law. The rule rejects the notion that a community of witnesses is necessary. The quality of evidence matters, not the quantity. Desirability of additional witnesses is not a legal requirement.
