OATH-TAKING IN PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: UNRAVELING THE SUPREME COURT CONUNDRUM

Abstract

Oath-taking in proof of title to land presents a genuine Supreme Court conundrum: is it every invocation of native arbitration by oath taking that binds the parties and ousts the orthodox methods of proving title to land in Nigeria, or does its binding effect depend on conditions the apex court has not always articulated with equal clarity across its decisions? This paper sets out to unravel that conundrum. It is no longer news that proof of title to land in Nigeria is traditionally established by any one of the five ways enunciated in Idundun v. Okumagba. The paper juxtaposes the decision in Odoemelam v Ojiavo & Ors, alongside that of Umeadi v Chibunze, on the one hand, both of which uphold the binding effect of a voluntarily submitted and completed customary arbitration by oath-taking on proof of title, against the decision in Anyimba v Onovo, read alongside Idundun v Okumagba, on the other hand, both of which insist on strict, tangible proof before any departure from the orthodox methods of proving title is countenanced. The paper, adopting the doctrinal research methodology, interrogates the various opinions of the Law Lords in the four cases and the ratio decidendi for arriving at their conclusions. In order to effectively analyze, identify and possibly justify the ratio as highlighted earlier, the paper undertakes a conceptual clarification of land, oath-taking, proof, and the conundrum they together generate, before X-raying the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam and the five ways of proving title as settled in Idundun v Okumagba. The paper ended with the finding that the Supreme Court conundrum is more apparent than real, and the conclusion that it is not every invocation of native arbitration by oath-taking that binds the parties or ousts the orthodox methods of proving title, and suggested some recommendations for reform to wit: that courts should demand strict and tangible proof of the actual completion of any customary oath-taking before according it binding effect, and that the Evidence Act 2011 be amended to codify the evidential threshold required to establish a completed customary arbitration.