LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Documentary Evidence – Unregistered Instrument – Admissibility as Receipt
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is clear from the face of the exhibit that the parties did not regard the descriptive narrative as giving the exact identity or precise boundaries of the land sold; the exhibit was rightly admitted in evidence as a mere receipt and not in proof of title to the land as the nature of the title relied upon was that of sale under customary law and not by virtue of conveyance.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"It is clear to me from the face of Exhibit A that the parties did not regard the above descriptive narrative as giving the exact identity or precise boundaries of the land sold... Exhibit A was rightly admitted in evidence in the present case as a mere receipt and not in proof of title to the land as the nature of the title relied upon by the plaintiff was that of sale under Customary law and not by virtue of conveyance."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Unregistered instruments serve different evidentiary purposes depending on content and context. Here, the document: didn’t provide precise land identity/boundaries, wasn’t intended as formal conveyance, and served merely as payment receipt. Admissibility as receipt (payment evidence) differs from admissibility as title proof (conveyance). The document was admissible to prove: payment occurred, transaction took place, and customary law sale happened—not to establish statutory conveyance or precise boundaries. When title is by customary law sale: oral evidence supplements written receipt, exact boundaries proven by other evidence, and receipt shows transaction occurred without necessarily defining land precisely. This distinguishes: formal conveyances (registered instruments proving title and boundaries) from receipts/acknowledgments (proving payment/transaction). Courts assess documents based on: parties’ intention in creating them, content and level of detail, and purpose for which they’re tendered. The principle permits flexible use of documents for purposes they actually serve: receipt for payment evidence even if inadequate for title/boundary proof. This realistic approach recognizes documents’ varying purposes and admits them for what they genuinely evidence