"On traditional history or evidence, see:- Olaoluwa Fayemi Vs. Sir L. S. Awe (2009) 13 NWLR (Part 1164) 315 At 319 Ratio 5.

This Court in the case of Olaoluwa Fayemi Vs. Sir L. S. Awe (Supra), on traditional evidence or history in respect of land stated:-

"Traditional evidence or history in respect of ownership of land is evidence albeit admissible hearsay as to the rights alleged to have existed beyond the time of living memory proved by members of the family or community who claimed the land, subject of dispute as their own. It can equally be described as ancient history, thus, the principles of traditional history are:-

(a) Where the line of succession is not satisfactorily traced in an action for declaration of ownership of land or title and the line of succession has gaps and mysterious or embarrassing linkages which are not explained or established, such line of succession would be rejected.

(b) Once a party pleads and traces the root of the title to a particular person or family, he must establish how that person came to have title vested in him. He cannot ignore proof of his overlord's title and rely on long possession.

(c) Where there are conflicts in the evidence given by witnesses called by the same party, the trial Court is duly bound to find which of the two conflicting histories is more probable by testing it against the other evidence. It is only when it can neither find any of the two histories probable or conclusive that it would declare both inconclusive and proceed to decide the case on the basis of numerous and positive acts of possession or actual user. See:- Magaji Vs. Cadbury (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR(Part 7) 393; Kojo II Vs. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223; Thomas Vs. Holder (1946) 12 WACA 78; Oil Costa Vs. Ikomi (1968) 1 All NLR 394; Owoade Vs. Omitola (1988) 2 NWLR (Part 77) 413.'"

Per Bage, J.C.A in CHIEF OYEBOLA BALOGUN v. SAKIRATU YUSUFF  [2010] NGSC 8 (16 February 2010);