LAND LAW — Proof of Title — Reliance on Traditional History Excludes Inconsistent Alternative Roots
Principle Statement
Where a party relies on traditional history, and in addition acts of ownership and long possession predicated on that traditional history as pleaded, he is not entitled to a declaration of title based on evidence of acts of ownership and long possession where the evidence of traditional history is unavailing.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Ezukwu v. Chukwu & Anor (2004) NLC-1602000(SC) at p. 14; Paras A–B.
"However, where as in this case, he relies on traditional history, and in addition acts of ownership and long possession predicated on the traditional history as pleaded, he is not entitled to a declaration of title based on the evidence of acts of ownership and long possession where the evidence of traditional history is unavailing."
Explanation / Scope
Acts of ownership and long possession derived from pleaded traditional history cannot succeed if the traditional history fails. The roots of title are linked, not independent. The principle applies to land law. The rule prevents a party from abandoning a failed traditional history to rely solely on possession. The possession and acts are predicated on that history. If the foundational history is unproved, the derivative claims also fail.
