The burden of proof of customary law is on the party asserting its existence. See Usibiafo v. Usibiafo (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt.913) 665 at 684; Sokwo v. Kpongbo (supra). It has been established through plethora of cases that it is extremely important that native law and custom must be pleaded and strictly proved by credible evidence. This case is not predicated on proof by the mode of judicial notice, but by proof of evidence.
— T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Alabi v Audu (2017) – CA/A/494/2014
SHARE ON
As our society advances, they are more removed from its pristine social ecology. They meet situations which were inconceivable at the time they took root. The doctrine of repugnancy in my view affords the courts the opportunity for fine tuning customary laws to meet changed social conditions where necessary, more especially as there is no forum for repealing or amending customary laws. I do not intend to be understood as holding that the Courts are there to enact customary laws. When however customary law is confronted by a novel situation, the courts have to consider its applicability under existing social environment.
– Nwokedi JSC. Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) – SC 104/1989
The cases cited by learned Counsel for the parties namely Esugbayi Eleko v Officer Administrating the Government of Nigeria; In Re Whyte; Cole v Cole; Nwokoro v Onuma; Buhar of Kaligeri v Bornu Native Authority; Laoye v Oyetunde, deal with elementary principles of our customary law jurisprudence to wit that customary laws are part of the body of laws to be applied by the Court, the application of customary laws subject to the doctrine of repugnance, the essential ingredients of proof and incidents of customary laws.
– Nwokedi JSC. Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) – SC 104/1989
It is a settled position of law that, by Yoruba Customary Law, a transaction for the sale and conveyance of family land requires the consent of all members of the family or substantial majority of them. See AFOLABI COKER VS MARIAMO OGUNTOLA & ORS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 87); ELIAS VS OLAYEMI DISU & 3 ORS (1962) 1 ALL NLR 214; FOKO VS FOKO (1965) NMLR 3, EBOSIE VS EBOSIE (1976) 6 UILR 217.
— S.D. Bage, JSC. Onyekwuluje v Animashaun (2019) – SC.72/2006
The importance of customary law vis-a-vis Customary Courts to adjudication process or administration of justice system in Nigeria cannot be over-emphasized. The sui generis nature of Customary Courts vis-a-vis the practice and procedure thereof have also been alluded to above. Regrettably, ever since the emergence of the sociological ideas of Roscoe Pound, with particular regard to the modern concept of law in a developing society, the most unreasonable and highly misplaced criticism about African law (customary and nature is that it is merely custom, and not law. However, most cherishingly, concerted efforts have so far been made to sweep away the cobwebs, the myths, prejudices, and philosophical doubts of those who hove all along denied that there was any such thing as African law, customary or native low. Professor Allott, formerly of the School of Oriental And African Studies, University of London, was most pertinent when he wrote, inter alia, thus: ‘African law (customary law) is, in short, reasoned, it is not arbitrary savage or non-existent. The difference between African and Western law is one of degree, not of kind.’
– I.M.M. Saulawa JCA. Agara v. Agunbiade (2012) – CA/L/304/2009
Alake v. Pratt (1955) 15 W.A.C.A. 20, to the effect that if paternity of children is acknowledged by a man during his lifetime they are to be regarded as legitimate and entitled to share in his estate with his children born of a marriage contracted under the Marriage Ordinance.
It is well settled that customary law is a question of fact to be proved by evidence. See Section 14 of Evidence Law. Hence a party who alleges the existence of a particular custom must adduce sufficient evidence in support and to establish its existence to the satisfaction of the court. See Inyang v Ita (1929) 9 NLR 84. But there comes a time when by frequent litigation in the courts, a point of customary law has been sufficiently ruled upon, the courts will no longer require proof, and would be prepared to take judicial notice of it. See Angu v Attah, PC 74, 28, 43; Buraimo v Gbamgboye (1940) 15 NLR 139; Giwa v Erimolokun (1961) 1 All NLR 294, 1 SCNLR 337. The burden is on the defendants to establish the custom they rely upon for their defence. Balogun v Labiran (1988) 3 NWLR (Part 80) 66. Indeed only a single decision, sufficiently cogent and authoritative would be sufficient – Larinde v Afiko (1940) 6 WACA 108, but see Cole v Akinyele (1960) 5 FSC 84; (1960) SCNLR 192; Folami & others v Cole & others (1990) 2 NWLR (Part 133) 445.
– Karibe-Whyte JSC. Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) – SC 104/1989
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry