LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW — Proof of Title — Traditional History — Where Conflicting Traditional Histories, Test to Determine More Probable Version
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Conflicting traditional evidence is not resolved by demeanour of witnesses but by testing each version by reference to recent facts as established by evidence, and seeing which of the two competing histories is more probable.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Irolo & Ors v. Uka & Anor (2002) NLC-1301998(SC) at p. 35; Paras D–E.
"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
The Kojo v. Bonsie principle governs resolution of conflicting traditional histories. The court tests each version against recent, established facts. Demeanour of witnesses is not reliable for ancient traditions. The more probable version is accepted. The principle recognises that traditions are passed down and may be honestly believed by both sides. Recent acts of possession and ownership are objective evidence. The court moves from the known (recent facts) to the unknown (ancient history). The rule applies to land disputes where both parties rely on tradition. The appellate court will defer to the trial court’s application if supported by evidence. The principle promotes rational resolution of traditional evidence conflicts.