LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Traditional History – Pleading of Devolution – Requirements for Sufficiency
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A party relying on evidence of traditional history must plead his root of title. He must show in his pleading and evidence, who those ancestors of his are and how they came to own and possess the land and eventually passed it to him. To establish the traditional history of land relied on as root of title, a plaintiff must plead the names of the founder and those after him upon whom the land devolved to the last successor(s) and lead evidence in support without leaving gaps or creating mysterious or embarrassing linkages which have not been and cannot be explained.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Eze v. Atasie (2000) NLC-1401995(SC) at pp. 4–5; Paras D–A.
"A party relying on evidence of traditional history must plead his root of title. He must show in his pleading and evidence, who those ancestors of his are and how they came to own and possess the land and eventually passed it to him. To establish the traditional history of land relied on as root of title, a plaintiff must plead the names of the founder and those after him upon whom the land devolved to the last successor(s) and lead evidence in support without leaving gaps or creating mysterious or embarrassing linkages which have not been and cannot be explained."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Traditional history requires pleading and proving a complete chain of devolution from founder to plaintiff. The plaintiff must name the founder and each successor through whom the land devolved. Gaps, mysterious linkages, or unexplained transitions invalidate the history. The evidence must be coherent, continuous, and credible. The court must be able to trace the lineage without speculation. Vague references to “ancestors” or “predecessors” are insufficient. Specific names and relationships must be provided. This prevents reliance on fabricated or incomplete traditions. The burden is on the plaintiff to present a clear, unbroken devolution chain.