SHITTU OLAMIDE OLUWAHEYI

MATRIC NUMBER
19/40IA091

LAND LAW ASSIGNMENT

The degree of control in land and the form of control which encapsulate the use and enjoyment of
land that are reorganized by law is invested in the existence of facts from which ownership and
possession could be inferred1
Title may be absolute or restricted. The former is synonymous with ownership while the latter may
amount to possession or mere subtraction from but part of a superior title. A mere occupational right
does not vest title in any way unless there is animus possidendi2.
However, at this junction this assessment will be focused on the meaning, extent, similarities and
differences of the two concept ownership and possession and the legal effect that follow suit thereof.

OWNERSHIP
Ownership is the most comprehensive and complete relationship that can exist in respect of anything.
It implies the fullest amplitude of rights of enjoyment, management and disposal over property. To put
in the other way round, it implies that the owner’s title to these rights is suppeior and paramount over
any other rights that may exist in land in favor of other persons; in negative language his right to
enjoyment, management and disposal of thing must not dependent upon, or surbordinate to that of any
other person3
Ownership connotes and absolutes right on land. it is the totality or the bundle of the rights of a
person over and above every other person on a thing. When the right of a claimant to possess, use and
1
See practical approach to law of real property in Nigeria I.O. Smith
2
i.e the intention to exercise exclusive possession.
3
The Nigerian land law , Adewale taiwo, revised edition, 2016.
dispose of land is not subjected or restricted by the superior right of another person, the right of
ownership is said to be vested in him.4
On the meaning of ownership, in the case of MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA
LTD/GTE v. COMPACT DISC TECHNOLOGY LTD & ORS (2018) JELR 38313 (SC) the term
was defined thus;
“Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition Bryan A Garner page 1215 defines ownership rights thus: -"the
right to possess a thing, regardless of any actual or constructive control. Ownership rights are general,
permanent and heritable."
Moving unto ownership of land it was judicially defined by Hellen Morenikeji JCA in the case of
OBIENU v. OKEKE & ORS (2017) JELR 37359 (CA)
“Ownership of land is the exclusive right a person possesses over a piece of land to use same for
farmland and any other activities of choice without being disturbed by anyone claiming any similar
right”.
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa in the case of AYHOK & ANOR v. PLATEAU PUBLISHING
CORPORATION & ORS (2020) JELR 110342 (CA) retreating the dictum of Tobi JCA in Abraham
v. Olurunfemi that;
“Ownership is a complete right over a property. The owner of the property is not subject to the right of
another person. Because he is the owner, he has the full right of another person. Because he is the
owner, he has the full and final right of alienation or disposition of the property…..”

BRAITHWAITE v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIGERIA LIMITED (2011) JELR 48515 (CA)

Title to land presupposes exclusive right to the land in the sense that the party does not share the
allodial right of ownership with any other person. Ownership generally connotes the totality of or the
bundle of the rights of the owner over and above every other person on a thing. It connotes a complete
and total right over property. The property begins with the owner and also ends with him. Unless he
transfers his ownership of the property to a third party he remains the allodial owner. In Kodilinye v.
Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336, Webber, CJ, said at pages 337 and 338:
The property owner is not subject to another person's right. Because he is the owner, he has the full
and final right of alienation or disposition of the property. And he exercises this right of alienation and
disposition without seeking the consent of another party because as a matter of law and fact there is
no other party’s right over the property that is higher than that of his. He has the inalienable right to
sell the property at any price, even at a give away price. He can even give it out gratis, that is for no
consideration. The owner of a property can use it for any purpose; material, immaterial, substantial,
non-substantial, valuable, invaluable, beneficial or even for a purpose which is detrimental to his
personal or proprietary interest. In so far as the property is his and inheres in him nobody can say
anything. He is the alpha and omega of the property. The property begins with him and also ends with
him. Unless he transfers his ownership over the property to a third party, he remains the allodial
owner. See generally the case of JOSEPH & ORS v. ASELE & ANOR (2021) JELR 109255 (CA).
It is also important to note from this junction that ownership is potentially the most extensive right
that a person can have with regards to property most especially as it relates to landed property or land
matters.5

4
See pollock, jurisprudence and legal essay, London,1961
5
Wille’s Principles of South African Law, 9th ed..,(Juta & Co.,Cape Town,2007)470.
Under the customary land tenure system in Nigeria, ownership of land is vested in community heads
and heads of family which may later be transcended to the exclusive right of an individual over and
above others6
However, with the advent of the land use act 19787, the ownership of land in Nigeria is vested in the
governor of the state8, what Nigeria enjoys is the right of occupancy so the concept of ownership of
land in Nigeria today may be construed as the right of occupancy
Ways of proving ownership
A claim to ownership of land may be established procedurally mainly by any of the five ways
established by the supreme court in the locus classicus case of Idundun v. Okumagba9 this mode has
also been given credence in the case of NRUAMAH & ORS. v. EBUZOEME & ORS. (2013) JELR
36099 (SC)
In an action for title to land, it has long been settled that there are five methods by which title to land
may be proved. They are:
(a) By traditional evidence,
(b) By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed.
(c) By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as
to warrant the inference of true ownership.
(d) By acts of tong possession and enjoyment.
(e) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the
owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See;
D. O. Idundun & Ors. v. Daniel Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 224 at 227, LLAC Vol. 1, 177 at 190-191
(2002) 20 WRN 127 at 186; (1976) 1 NMLR 200.
However, a plaintiff or claimant is not required to prove all the above five methods or ways to
establish his claim for declaration of title. The methods are not conjunctive. It is sufficient if one of
the five ways is proved. This will suffice to entitle the claimant to the declaration. See; Peter Ojoh v.
Owuala Kamalu & 3 Ors. (2005) 12 SCM 332, (2005) 12 SCNJ 236 at 261; (2005) 18 NWLR (pt
958) 523 at 574-575. But the claim of the Plaintiff and the facts and circumstances of each case will
be dependent on the particular way or method being sought to be proved to establish his claim to title.
See; Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig.) Limited (2004) 23 WRN 54; (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 7) 393; Omoregie v.
Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 5) 41; Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (pt 76) 263. Fagge v.
Uba Adakawa & Anor (2006) 46 WRN 162 at 186-187.
RIGHT ENJOYED BY VIRTUE OF OWNERSHIP.
In the case of OZOMARO & ORS v. OZOMARO & ANOR (2014) JELR 42214 (CA), her
lordship Hellen Morenikeji commented on some of the rights enjoyed by a person who has ownership
over a piece of land, these right are;
1. Right to alienate such land without approval from anyone
2. Right to exclusive possession of the parcel of land or property
Also in the case of OBIENU v. OKEKE & ORS (2017) JELR 37359 (CA), her lordship added
that such person possesss;
3. Exclusive right to farm on the land and use and undisturbed enjoyment,
6
The Nigerian land law. Adeleke taiwo.171
7
See CAP 59. LFN,2004.
8
Ibid s.1
9
(1976) 10 SC p.227
 4. Right to allot the land at will and right to dissolute the land at will.
The right of the owner id therefore, not subjected to or restricted by the superior right of
another person. Ownership vests in the owner the right of possession. On the other hand,
possession may mot be immediate where the owner grants possession of his land to another
person; the ownership remains with the grantor while possession inheres in the grantee for the
duration of the grant. However, the rights of possession to the land reverts to the owner when
the grant comes to an end and he can then resume possession10

It is important to note also, that these rights though seems absolute but have some basic
limitations of which includes;
Limitation imposes by public and private laws
Limitation imposes by planning, building and zoning law, environmental law and other
government regulation
Limitation by statute; otherwise known as the statute of limitation DUMEZ NIGERIA PLC
v. ADEMOYE & ORS (2014) JELR 36432 (CA)

POSSESSION
Just like the term ownership it is also pertinent to note that the term possession is not subject to one
specific definition. However, there have been numerous definitions rendered by judicial interpretation
and expert opinions from textbooks of law. Recent from these definitions are to be considered as
follows.
In the case of STAR FINANCE & PROPERTY LTD. & ANOR v. NDIC (2012) JELR 35031
(CA)
Black's Learned Dictionary (supra) at page 1163 defines Possession as follows: - "Having control over
a thing with the intent to have and to exercise such control. The detention and control, or the manual
or ideal custody of anything which may be the subject of property, for one's use and enjoyment, either
as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who
exercises it in one's place and name. Act or state of possessing".
In the case of MASTER v. MANSUR & ORS (2014) JELR 36486 (CA)
Now, possession of property or a parcel of land means the occupation or physical control of the
property or parcel of land by a person either personally or through an agent or servant - NITEL Plc v.
Rockonoh Property Co. Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt 378) 473, Ladipo v. Ajani (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 517)
356, Okegbemi v. Akintola (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1076) 53.
In the case of IGWEBE v. SAIDASHS INTL. LTD & ANOR (2016) JELR 41732 (CA)
For the purposes of the law in these circumstances it is important to note that cultivation of land,
erection of a building line or fence, and even demarcation of land with pegs at its corners have all
been held to be evidence of possession, see AJERO v. UGORJI 1991 10 NWLR PT 621 PG 1 AT PG
14 AND THOMPSON v. AROWOLO 2003 7 NWLR PT 818 PG.

Possession may mean effective physical or manual control or occupation of land- de facto possession
– as well as possession animus possidendi together with that amount of occupation or control of the
land which is sufficient to exclude other persons from interfering – de jure procession 11
10
R.W.M.,Jurispudence, 5th ed.(1985)297.
11
See Olawoye; ownership and possession (1970) NJCL, vol.2 p.300
Succinctly, put, there as posited in the case of AMEEN V. AMAO (2013) 9NWLR (p.t 1359). 159
@178. It was noted among others, that, in land law, there are two types of possession namely;
a. Actual possession, and
b. Possession imputed by law which is derived from title
Possession can also be constructive and actual, possession can also be De jure and De facto.
However, for the basis of this assessment, these two types of possession shall be considered
Actual possession means no more than physical possession, possession in fact 12 A person who
knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is then in actual possession of it. A
person who although not in actual possession knowingly has both power and the intention at a given
time to exercise dominion and control over a thing either directly or indirectly or through another
person or persons is then in constructive possession of it13.
EHWRUDJE v. WARRI LOCAL GOVT & ANOR (2016) JELR 37168 (SC)
"The law, in general, recognises two kinds of possession; actual possession and constructive
possession. A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is then in
actual possession of it. A person who although not in actual possession knowingly has both the power
and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or
through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it. (See Black's Law
Dictionary, Fifth Edition).

12
see Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, (3rd Ed.) p. 51.
13
See Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at page 1047.