LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Traditional History – Mandatory Duty to Resolve Conflicting Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A trial judge has a mandatory duty to make findings of fact on rival conflicting traditional evidence adduced before him. He cannot shy away from that duty.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Ibenye v. Agwu (1998) NLC-771992(SC) at pp. 29–30; Paras C–B (quoting Omosun, JCA).
"In my judgment the learned Judge was wrong in not making any finding of fact on the rival conflicting traditional evidence adduced before him… We are dealing with hard facts and the learned Judge should have made findings, accepted or rejected one of the rival histories… With all respect to the learned Judge, he could not shy away from that duty."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The trial judge must resolve conflicting traditional history. Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty. The principle applies to land disputes. The judge cannot avoid making findings. The appellate court may set aside the decision or order a retrial. The rule ensures that decisions are based on findings of fact. The judge must evaluate the evidence and prefer one version. The principle promotes thorough adjudication.
