Although each party denied that the other’s ancestor was the first to settle at Duasi, neither denied the ancestry of the other. In the circumstances, the resolution of the traditional evidence did not depend on the acceptance or rejection of the entire history of a party as done by the trial judge, but on the determination of which of the ancestors was first to settle at Duasi. In such a situation where it was difficult to make such a finding, the recommended approach was to have recourse to facts in recent years as established by the evidence. Thus a party could still succeed in an action for declaration of title even if his traditional evidence was rejected. In the instant case, not only did the boundary owners testify in support of the boundary the plaintiff identified, but they further testified to the plain­tiff’s ownership of the disputed land. However, the defendant called no boundary owner nor any witness to testify to his alleged ownership of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment.