LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Proof of Title to Land — Traditional Evidence — Application of Kojo v. Bonsie Principle
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The principle in Kojo v. Bonsie is that the trial judge should evaluate competing versions of traditional evidence and test the veracity thereof by reference to recent facts, seeing which is more probable.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The principle laid down in Kojo v. Bonsie (supra) which is simply that the trial Judge should evaluate the competing versions of the traditional evidence led and test the veracity thereof by reference to recent facts and see which is more probable and applicable."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Kojo v. Bonsie principle provides the proper approach for resolving conflicting traditional histories. The court tests each version against recent, established facts. The more probable version is accepted. The principle recognises that demeanour of witnesses is not reliable for ancient traditions. Recent acts of possession are objective evidence. The court moves from the known (recent facts) to the unknown (ancient history). The principle applies to land disputes where both parties rely on tradition. The court must not simply prefer one version based on witness credibility. The rule promotes rational resolution of traditional evidence conflicts. The appellate court will defer to the trial court’s application of the principle if supported by evidence.