Subject Matter Index
Browse cases by legal subject matter and principles
ALL
GHANA
NIGERIA
UNITED KINGDOM
WEST AFRICA
Burden on a Claimant relying on traditional history as a way of proving title to land and the duty of the court in such circumstance
Duty of a trial judge faced with competing histories regarding acquisition of a piece of land through traditional history
Duty of court where there is a conflict in evidence of traditional history
Effect of evidence of traditional history which is in conflict with the pleadings
Effect of failure of the claimant to establish particulars of the intervening owners of the land through whom they claimed title to the land in dispute
Effect of failure to offer evidence of traditional history to counter the opposing party's evidence of traditional history
Effect of failure to satisfactorily prove the line of succession in a claim for title by traditional history
Effect of inconclusive evidence of traditional history
Effect of uncontradicted evidence of traditional history
Facts a party relying on traditional evidence as proof of ownership of land must establish
Facts that must be pleaded and proved by a party relying on traditional history to establish title to land
How competing traditional histories are resolved
How evidence of traditional history is tested and discharged by the court
How rival traditional evidence is assessed
How to plead traditional history in a claim for declaration of title
How traditional history is tested
Nature of traditional history which will support a claim for declaration of title
Need for evidence of traditional history to be conclusive for the plaintiff to succeed
On what amounts to traditional history required to prove title to land
Position of the law where a party projects two competing traditional histories
Position of the law where both sides to a dispute claim ownership of land and both base their claim through traditional history
Position of the law where evidence of traditional history is conclusive
Position of the law where possession rests on traditional history which has failed
Position of the law where there are two conflicting evidence of traditional history
Position of the law where there is a conflict in a party's evidence of traditional history
Position of the law where traditional history is unhelpful
Principles for treating and accepting traditional evidence as sufficient to establish title to land
Principles governing the reliance on traditional history
Principles governing the treatment and acceptance of traditional evidence as sufficient to establish title to land
Proof by evidence of traditional history is one of the five ways of proving title to land
Proper course to follow where there is conflicting evidence of traditional history
The position of the law on how to establish title by traditional history
The rule that a party relying on evidence of traditional history must plead his root of title
The rule that a party relying on traditional history must prove how his ancestor, the original owner acquired the land
The rule that where both sides to the dispute claim ownership to the land based on traditional or ancestral history, it is the party that advances better evidence of traditional history or ownership that will be entitled to the judgment of the court
The rule that where the traditional history of a particular piece of land is given, it is usually traced to an individual founder who first acquired the land
What a plaintiff relying on evidence of traditional history must do
What constitutes evidence of traditional history
What the plaintiff must prove where evidence of traditional history is inconclusive
What traditional history/evidence entails
What traditional history in proof of ownership of land entails
When proof of grant by traditional history will arise where the plaintiff relies on acquisition of title by inheritance
When proof of grant or gift by traditional history arises
When the evidence of traditional history will be full proof
When traditional evidence will be said to be conclusive
When traditional evidence will be said to be inconclusive
When traditional history is the best form of evidence for proving title to land
where there are two conflicting traditional evidence in a claim for a declaration of title to land, what happens?
Whether another person other than the party before the court can give evidence to establish traditional title
Whether a party can lead evidence of possessing adjacent land where there is solid evidence of traditional history
Whether a party who relies on traditional history in proof of title to land must prove the custom of the community in relation to acquisition of land by conquest
Whether a plaintiff must prove traditional history before he can lead evidence of acts of possession on the land
Whether a trial judge is entitled to accept a conclusive evidence of traditional history against the evidence that is conflicting
Whether evidence of acts of ownership and long possession are relevant where traditional histories are in conflict
Whether evidence of acts of possession is relevant where there is traditional evidence
Whether evidence of possession or acts of ownership can be relied on where evidence of traditional history failed
Whether evidence of traditional history can support a claim for declaration of statutory right of occupancy
Whether evidence of traditional history is sufficient to support a claim or declaration of title to land
Whether evidence of traditional history must be corroborated
Whether evidence of traditional history must be without contradictions
Whether evidence of traditional history requires corroboration
Whether it is necessary to resort to acts of recent ownership where the traditional history put forth by one party is held to be plausible
Whether it is sufficient for a party who relies on evidence of traditional history to merely plead that he and his predecessors in title had owned and possessed the land in dispute from time immemorial without more
Whether the court can supply any missing link in a genealogical tree from progenitor to a claimant
Whether the question of resolving the two conflicting traditional histories presented by the parties will arise where the trial Judge rejected the traditional history presented by both parties
Whether the use of evidence of traditional history to sustain a declaratory relief is restricted to declaration of title to land
Whether the veracity or otherwise of conflicting traditional histories can be determined on the demeanour of witnesses
Access More on judy.legal
Get related cases, follow principles for updates, and access AI-powered research.
Explore judy.legal