Proof of Title to Land by Traditional History: Nigerian Perspective

Understanding Proof of Title to Land by Traditional History in Nigerian Property Law

Proof of title to land by traditional history is one of the five ways of establishing title to land in Nigeria. Unfortunately, many land cases have been lost because claimants lack the necessary elements to successfully establish traditional history for disputed land. This article examines how Nigerian courts evaluate proof of title to land by traditional history. It offers crucial insights for landowners, legal practitioners, and traditional rulers handling land disputes.

By the end of this article, you will understand the legal framework for establishing land ownership through traditional history, the critical elements courts look for in evaluating such claims, and practical strategies for strengthening your case based on the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Maranro v. Oyegoke.

The Five Ways to Prove Title to Land

Nigerian property law, as established in the landmark cases of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) and subsequently affirmed in numerous Supreme Court decisions, recognizes five distinct methods through which land title can be proven:

1. By traditional history – establishing ownership through historical narratives passed down through generations
2. By production of documents of title – using deeds, certificates of occupancy, or other formal documentation
3. By acts of ownership – demonstrating numerous and positive acts of ownership over time
4. By acts of long possession – showing continuous occupation and control of the land
5. By proof of possession of adjacent land – establishing ownership of surrounding areas under circumstances that suggest ownership of the disputed land

While each method has its merits, proof of title to land by traditional history holds a unique position in Nigerian jurisprudence. As Justice Augie emphasized in Maranro v. Oyegoke [2025] 3 NWLR 447, where traditional history has been introduced, it must be evaluated before considering other forms of proof. This is because conventional history typically reveals the root of how ownership first began, the origin story of the land in question.

What Constitutes Proof of Title to Land by Traditional History?

Definition and Legal Status of Traditional History

Proof of title to land by traditional history refers to establishing ownership rights through historical accounts of how the land was first acquired and subsequently transferred through generations. This evidence typically comes from oral testimonies that detail the founding story of settlement on the land, the lineage of ownership, and the boundaries established from time immemorial.

In Maranro v. Oyegoke, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that for traditional history to be acceptable, it must go back to “ancient times” and must have “endured through generations.” It is not merely accounts of recent years but historical narratives that stretch back to time immemorial, a period so long ago that it exceeds living memory.

Essential Elements for Successful Proof of Title to Land by Traditional History

For traditional history to successfully establish title to land, the Supreme Court in Maranro v. Oyegoke outlined several critical requirements:

1. Complete Historical Narrative: A claimant must “plead the names of the founder and those after him upon whom the land devolved to the last successor(s)” without leaving unexplained gaps.
2. Consistent Chronology: The timeline presented must be logical and consistent, showing how the land passed from one generation to the next.
3. Identification of Original Acquisition: The claimant must clearly explain how the land was first acquired, whether through settlement of vacant land, conquest, gift, purchase, or other means.
4. Detailed Genealogy: The relationship between the current claimant and the original settlers must be established, proving how the right to the land has been inherited.
5. Boundary Descriptions: Traditional history should include descriptions of landmarks, natural features, or other boundary indicators recognized by the community.

Case Study on Proof of Title to Land by Traditional History: Maranro v. Oyegoke

The Supreme Court case of Maranro v. Oyegoke [2025] 3 NWLR 447 provides a perfect illustration of how courts evaluate traditional history in land disputes. This case traversed three courts, the Upper Area Court of Omu-Aran, the High Court of Kwara State, and the Court of Appeal, before reaching the Supreme Court.

Background and Competing Claims in Traditional History

Oba Jubril Bolaji Maranro (representing the Maranro family of Aho-Ogbada) claimed that his family were the rightful owners of land located in Oyun Local Government Area of Kwara State, covering twelve towns and villages. His claim was opposed by Prince Rabiu Oyegoke (representing the Laage family of Ira).

Maranro’s traditional history asserted that his forefathers were hunters who discovered unoccupied land and settled there, with the first Alaho (traditional ruler) ascending the throne in 1830. He claimed that subsequent Alahos included Saba Tunde Balapa Maranro, Adigun Maranro, and Iliasu Iyanda Maranro, with Jubril Bolaji Maranro (the appellant) becoming the fifth Alaho in 1993.

Oyegoke countered with his own traditional history, claiming that the Laage family of Ira were the founders of the disputed villages. His witnesses provided detailed accounts of how each village was named and founded, with documentary evidence showing that Ira Town was over 200 years old as of 1925 and one of the oldest towns in Yorubaland.

Deficiencies in Maranro’s Traditional History

The Supreme Court identified several critical flaws in Maranro’s proof of title to land by traditional history:

1. Incomplete Historical Account: While Maranro claimed his forefathers were hunters who discovered the land, he failed to identify who these specific “past hunters” were before the first Alaho came to the throne in 1830.
2. Unexplained Genealogical Gaps: The court noted “gaping holes” in Maranro’s testimony regarding the identity of his ancestors and how they came to possess the land before 1830.
3. Inconsistent Witness Testimony: Maranro’s witnesses could not provide consistent accounts of how and when the disputed villages were founded, with many admitting under cross-examination that they did not know the founders or origins of their villages.
4. Contradictory Historical Timeline: Documentary evidence, including exhibits from the National Archive showing that Ira Town was over 200 years old as of 1925, contradicted Maranro’s claims about the chronology of settlement in the area.

Justice Augie pointedly observed: “The history narrated by the appellant did not go beyond 1830, and who his forefathers were before 1830, and how they had founded the land were questions left unanswered.”

The Court’s Decision on Traditional History

All three courts, the Upper Area Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, found Oyegoke’s traditional history more compelling, and the Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings. The court determined that Oyegoke had established a better claim to original ownership of the land through more complete, consistent, and credible traditional history.

As Justice Augie concluded: “This aspect of his evidence having failed, the appellant is not allowed to rely on acts of possession and ownership to back his claim for title to the land.”

The Primacy of Proof of Title to Land by Traditional History

One of the most significant aspects of the Maranro judgment is its affirmation that proof of title to land by traditional history takes precedence over other methods of establishing ownership. Justice Augie, citing Sanusi v. Amoyegun (1992), stated:

“Even though there are five different ways of proving title, where evidence of tradition has been adduced, it is necessary to go into it first, for evidence of tradition usually goes to the roots as to how a claimant and his predecessor-in-title came upon the land.”

This principle makes logical sense, before considering acts of possession or documentary evidence, the court must first determine the origins of ownership. If traditional history establishes a valid claim to original ownership, other evidence may simply support this claim. Conversely, if traditional history fails, other forms of proof may be insufficient to establish title.

Lessons from Maranro v. Oyegoke for Establishing Proof of Title to Land by Traditional History

The Supreme Court’s decision in Maranro provides valuable guidance for those seeking to establish land ownership through traditional history:

1. Document Complete Genealogy: Ensure that the chain of succession is clearly established from the original founder to the current claimant, without unexplained gaps. Maranro’s failure to identify his ancestors before 1830 proved fatal to his claim.
2. Provide Consistent Testimonies: All witnesses should present a coherent narrative regarding how the land was acquired and passed down through generations. The inconsistent accounts from Maranro’s witnesses undermined his case.
3. Explain Origin of Possession: Clearly articulate how the original ancestor first came to possess the land. Vague references to unnamed “past hunters” were insufficient to establish Maranro’s claim.
4. Support Traditional History with Documentary Evidence: While traditional history is primarily oral, supporting documentation can strengthen the claim. Oyegoke’s case was bolstered by historical records showing Ira’s existence for over 200 years.
5. Address Competing Historical Claims: Directly confront and rebut any competing traditional histories presented by opponents. Maranro failed to adequately address the competing historical narrative presented by Oyegoke.
6. Establish Time Immemorial in Traditional History: Demonstrate that the traditional history extends beyond living memory. Maranro’s account only reached back to 1830, which the court found insufficient to establish title from “time immemorial.”

Burden of Proof in Traditional History Claims

The Supreme Court in Maranro emphasized that the burden of proof lies heavily on the claimant seeking declaration of title based on traditional history. As Justice Augie noted:

“A claimant seeking a declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his own case, not on the weakness of the defendant’s case… He must stand or fall on the strength of his case; if his case is strong, he wins, and if his case is weak or shaky, then he loses.”

This underscores an important principle: even if the opposing party presents a weak case, the claimant must still establish a convincing traditional history to succeed. The court will not grant title merely because the defendant’s case is weaker, the claimant’s historical evidence must be independently strong and compelling.

Conclusion

Proof of title to land by traditional history remains a cornerstone of Nigerian property law, particularly in cases involving customary land holdings. The Supreme Court’s decision in Maranro v. Oyegoke reinforces the primacy of traditional history while setting clear standards for what constitutes acceptable proof.

For anyone involved in land disputes where traditional claims are at stake, understanding these principles is essential. By presenting complete, consistent, and credible traditional history that traces ownership from time immemorial to the present, claimants can establish their rightful title to land even in the absence of formal documentation.

For further inquiries on land, inheritance disputes, or property transactions, please call or send an SMS to +2349045532566 .

Disclaimer:

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific legal assistance, consult a qualified lawyer.