LAND LAW — Declaration of Title to Land — Proof of Title — Traditional History
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Onwubuariri & Ors v. Igboasoyi & Ors (2011) NLC-123-212-2003(SC) at pp. 13—15; Paras E—A:
"In the instant case, both parties rooted their case in traditional history in which their root of title is traced to a common ancestor, AMADEHI though they differ as to the names of the alleged three sons of AMADEHI… In the instant case, the trial court clearly preferred the version of the plaintiffs/appellants against that of the defendants/respondents. That preference is based primarily on credibility of the witnesses in the absence of documentary evidence relevant to the issue… The lower court found/held as follows… 'Honestly, the traditional history and the genealogical background traced by the plaintiff is sufficiently good. They traced their ancestry to Amadehi and showed their various acts of ownership and possession on the land in dispute including acts of farming, collections of rents and tributes as well as ownership of huts and shrines'… The above constituted concurrent findings of facts by the lower courts on the issue of traditional history and acts of ownership of the two pieces of land in dispute."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that where parties rely on traditional history, the trial court’s preference for one version based on credibility and evidence of acts of ownership constitutes concurrent findings of fact. The principle applies in land title claims based on traditional history. It ensures that the credible version prevails. The principle reflects the role of credibility in traditional evidence. It supports findings based on acts of ownership. The court must assess the evidence. The principle provides guidance on traditional history.