LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Traditional History – Resolution of Conflicting Histories – When Kojo v. Bonsie Principle Applicable
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is not the law that once there are conflicts in the traditional histories adduced, the court must promptly declare them inconclusive and thereupon proceed to consider recent acts. What indeed happens is that the case being one fought on hearsay upon hearsay, the trial court has a duty to find which of the two histories is more probable by testing it against other evidence in the case. It is when it can neither find any of the two histories probable nor conclusive that he will declare both inconclusive and proceed to decide the case on the basis of numerous and positive acts of possession and ownership.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Biariko v. Edeh-Ogwuile & Ors (2001) NLC-741996(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras D–A.
"It is not the law that once there are conflicts in the traditional histories adduced, the court must promptly declare them inconclusive and thereupon proceed to consider recent acts. What indeed happens is that the case being one fought on hearsay upon hearsay, the trial court has a duty to find which of the two histories is more probable by testing it against other evidence in the case. It is when it can neither find any of the two histories probable nor conclusive that he will declare both inconclusive and proceed to decide the case on the basis of numerous and positive acts of possession and ownership."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Kojo v. Bonsie principle is not automatically triggered by any conflict in traditional histories. The trial court must first test each history against other evidence to determine which is more probable. Only if neither history is probable or conclusive will the court declare both inconclusive and decide based on recent acts of possession and ownership. The court does not bypass evaluation of traditional histories. The principle applies only when both histories are plausible but conflicting. The court’s duty is to find which history is more probable using external evidence. Premature resort to recent acts is error. The approach ensures thorough evaluation of traditional evidence before resorting to alternative methods.
