LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Traditional History – Contradictory Testimony Justifies Rejection
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where, however, the traditional histories put out by one of the parties is so intrinsically conflicting that a reasonable tribunal would not place credence on it, there is no room for the application of the approach. Thus, where witnesses of one party, as the witnesses for the defence in the instant case, contradict each other, on the traditional history relied on for the defence, the trial court will be right to reject the traditional history relied on by the defence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC (as adopted by Onu, JSC), in Biariko v. Edeh-Ogwuile & Ors (2001) NLC-741996(SC) at p. 22; Paras A–C.
"Where, however, the traditional histories put out by one of the parties is so intrinsically conflicting that a reasonable tribunal would not place credence on it, there is no room for the application of the approach. Thus, where witnesses of one party, as the witnesses for the defence in the instant case, contradict each other, on the traditional history relied on for the defence, the trial court will be right to reject the traditional history relied on by the defence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where a party’s traditional history is intrinsically contradictory—witnesses contradict each other on fundamental facts—the court may reject it outright. The Kojo v. Bonsie approach does not apply because there is no credible history to test. Contradictions within a party’s own case undermine credibility. A reasonable tribunal would not place credence on such evidence. The court need not proceed to recent acts if the traditional history is rejected. The rejection is based on lack of credibility, not conflict between parties. The principle applies where contradictions are material, not minor. The party with contradictory traditional evidence bears the consequence.
