LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Proof of Title – Rule in Kojo v. Bonsie – Conditions for Application
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
For the rule in Kojo v. Bonsie to apply, there must exist side by side, two stories of tradition, one by each party, which are themselves credible or plausible but are in conflict, one with the other, such that the court is unable realistically and justifiably to prefer one to the other. In that case, either of the two stories may rightly be regarded as likely to be true, or that they are probable. It follows that none of the stories in that situation is arbitrarily rejected, but each one is tested against recent acts of possession and ownership to determine which of the two stories is more probable. The rule does not apply where a party who relies on traditional history as root of title fails to establish that root.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Eze v. Atasie (2000) NLC-1401995(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras E–A.
"For the rule in Kojo v. Bonsie to apply, there must exist side by side, two stories of tradition, one by each party, which are themselves credible or plausible but are in conflict, one with the other, such that the court is unable realistically and justifiably to prefer one to the other. In that case, either of the two stories may rightly be regarded as likely to be true, or that they are probable. It follows that none of the stories in that situation is arbitrarily rejected, but each one is tested against recent acts of possession and ownership to determine which of the two stories is more probable. The rule does not apply where a party who relies on traditional history as root of title fails to establish that root."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Kojo v. Bonsie rule applies only when both parties present credible, plausible conflicting traditional histories, and the court cannot prefer one. The court then tests both against recent acts of possession to determine probability. The rule does not apply where one party fails to establish their root of title. It is a tie-breaking mechanism, not a substitute for proving one’s own case. The party must first establish a credible tradition before invoking the rule. Recent acts of possession are used only to choose between two viable traditions, not to salvage a failed one.