LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW — Proof of Title — Traditional History — Failure to Resolve Traditional History Not Fatal Where Acts of Ownership Established
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a trial judge resolves acts of ownership in favour of a party, that is sufficient for the party to succeed on title, even if he failed to resolve conflicting traditional history; the error does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Irolo & Ors v. Uka & Anor (2002) NLC-1301998(SC) at p. 35; Paras B–E.
"Though the trial Judge was wrong not to have made a finding on the conflicting traditional history pleaded by the parties, his error has, however, not occasioned a miscarriage of justice for the following reasons: (1) The learned Judge resolved the question of acts of ownership in favour of the defendants and this was enough for the defendants to succeed on their claim for title. (2) There being a case of conflicting traditional evidence adduced by the parties, this is not resolved by demeanour of witnesses but by testing each version of traditional history by reference to the facts in recent years as established by evidence, and by seeing which of the two competing histories is the more probable."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A trial judge’s failure to resolve traditional history is not fatal if acts of ownership are properly resolved. The error does not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The principle applies the Kojo v. Bonsie test: conflicting traditions are tested by recent facts, not demeanour. The appellate court will not reverse if the judgment can be supported on another ground. The appellant must show that the failure affected the outcome. The rule promotes finality. The court will examine whether the acts of ownership finding is supported by evidence. The principle balances the duty to resolve all issues with substantial justice. The error is harmless if the result would be the same.