LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Traditional History — Divergent Accounts — Resolution by Recent Acts of Possession
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When traditional histories of parties are divergent, the court should look to other evidence such as recent acts of possession; those in unchallenged possession exercising control over the land may be the rightful owners.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Belgore, JSC, in Layinka & Anor v. Makinde & Ors (2002) NLC-1341998(SC) at p. 3; Paras A–C.
"When traditional histories of the parties are divergent, it is not safe for trial court to simply or thereby hold that it believed one or rejected the other. The parties in such cases rely on histories handed down by their predecessors and however unlikely such histories, the parties honestly believe them. The court must then look to what other evidence available for help. Such evidence may be recent history on the land. Those in unchallenged possession and exercising control over the land may be rightful owners."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When traditional histories conflict, courts should not simply prefer one over the other based on belief. The parties honestly believe their versions. The court should seek other evidence, particularly recent acts of possession and control. Unchallenged possession and exercise of control over the land may indicate rightful ownership. The principle applies the Kojo II v. Bonsie test. Recent facts are more reliable than ancient traditions. The court examines which party has exercised acts of ownership. The rule helps resolve land disputes where traditional evidence is conflicting. The court should test traditional history against established recent facts.