PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Where a party relies on a previous judgment, it is sufficient to rely on the record of proceedings in those cases; there is no need to lead evidence to prove traditional history again if that traditional history was accepted in the prior judgment and the parties are the same or are privies.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Nnamani, JSC (as adopted) Ito & Ors v. Ekpe & Ors (2000) NLC-61993(SC) at p. 25; Paras. C–D.
"It seems to me that the traditional history put up by the respondents in the 1962 cases and which was then accepted by the learned trial judge was properly used by the trial judge in this case. I think it was sufficient that the respondents relied on the record of proceedings in those cases. I do not myself see the need for them to lead evidence to prove the traditional history again."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Where traditional history has been accepted in a prior judgment between the same parties or privies, it need not be re-proved through fresh oral evidence. The record of the previous proceedings, once properly pleaded and tendered, suffices. This applies the principles of estoppel and res judicata to avoid needless repetition of evidence, reduces the burden on parties, promotes judicial efficiency, and respects the finality of prior judicial findings on matters of customary law and traditional history.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE