LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Proof of Title to Land – Traditional History – Evaluation of Conflicting Histories
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a party had set out to establish title by traditional history all he needs do is to prove his title by conclusive and cogent evidence of tradition. Where the traditional histories are in conflict the probability of the rival histories is tested by evidence of recent facts.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Where a party had set out to establish title by traditional history all he needs do is to prove his title by conclusive and cogent evidence of tradition. Where the traditional histories are in conflict the probability of the rival histories is tested by evidence of recent facts."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party relying on traditional history must prove title by conclusive and cogent evidence of tradition. When traditional histories conflict, the court tests the probability of each by reference to recent established facts. The principle from Kojo II v. Bonsie applies. The court uses contemporary evidence—documents, acts of ownership, possession patterns—as an anchor. The goal is to determine which tradition is more probable, not which is absolutely certain. The court does not arbitrarily prefer one tradition. The evidence must be credible and consistent. The party with the more probable tradition prevails. The principle recognises the limitations of oral tradition while providing objective criteria for resolution. The court must evaluate all evidence, not just traditional accounts.
