THE GANI FAWEHINMI STUDENTS’ CHAMBERS DEDICATE THIS WORK TO

ALL THE FOUR HUNDRED (400) LEVEL STUDENTS OF THE FACULTY OF LAW,
UNILAG
Contents
THE CONCEPT OF PROPERTY................................................................................................... 6

Quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit...............................................................................................6

Applicability under customary law...........................................................................................6

Exceptions to the doctrine........................................................................................................ 8

LAND RIGHTS............................................................................................................................... 8

Only Nigerian citizens can apply for customary or statutory right of occupancy under the Land
Use Act.........................................................................................................................................8

Proof of Ownership...................................................................................................................... 9

Right of Prescription under Customary Law..............................................................................11

Exception................................................................................................................................ 12

Islamic Law on Prescription................................................................................................... 13

CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE SYSTEM................................................................................. 14

Ownership of Land under Customary Law................................................................................ 14

Burden of Proving Exclusive Ownership where Land is a Family Land................................... 14

How Family Property can be Created........................................................................................ 15

Status, Rights and Duties of Family Head..................................................................................17

Duty to Account......................................................................................................................18

Improvement on Family Land.................................................................................................... 19

Alienation of Family Property....................................................................................................21

Qualifications..........................................................................................................................22

Capacity to consent to alienation............................................................................................ 23

Setting aside of a voidable title...............................................................................................24

Use of Power ��of Attorney..............................................................................................25

Determination of family property........................................................................................... 27

CUSTOMARY LAND TRANSACTIONS................................................................................... 27

Sale of Land................................................................................................................................27

Gift ����of Land.............................................................................................................. 29

Borrowing of Land..................................................................................................................... 30

Customary Tenancy....................................................................................................................30

Customary pledge.......................................................................................................................34

EFFECTS OF THE LAND USE ACT ON CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE SYSTEM IN

NIGERIA....................................................................................................................................... 37

The issue of ownership of land in non-urban areas used for agricultural purposes before the
Act.............................................................................................................................................. 38

A certificate of occupancy without a valid title to land..............................................................40

Effect of a right of occupancy.................................................................................................... 41

THE LAND USE ACT.................................................................................................................. 42

Status of the Act......................................................................................................................... 42

Where any provision of the LUA is inconsistent with the Consitution.................................. 44

Customary Right of Occupancy: Deemed Grant........................................................................45

Developed Land- who is entitled to the right of occupancy?................................................. 45

Agricultural Land- who is entitled to the right of occupancy?............................................... 45

Inconsistent Grant by the Governor........................................................................................... 45

Right of Occupancy v. Lease......................................................................................................47

Certificate of Occupancy: Evidential ��Value..................................................................... 47

Alienation of Right of Occupancy..............................................................................................48

Whether the consent provision is transgressed by merely entering into an agreement of

alienation.................................................................................................................................50

Revocation of Rights of Occupancy...........................................................................................50

Procedure for Valid Revocation............................................................................................. 51

Revocation Done in Other to Fulfil a Private Need................................................................53
CASES
Abeje v. Ogundairo (1967) LLR 9.................................................................................................................................................................16
Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (pt. 190) 130.................................................................................................................33, 38, 42, 45
Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 190) 130..................................................................................................................................45
Adebiyi v. Williams (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 61...................................................................................................................................... 41
Adejumo v. Ayantegbe [1989] 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 417.................................................................................................................... 24, 25
Adetokunbo Ademola v. Amao...............................................................................................................................................................40, 47
Adeyemo v. Ladipo (1958) WNLR 138........................................................................................................................................................30
Adjei v. Chief Dabanka (1930) 1 WACA 63.............................................................................................................................................35
AG Lagos v. NEPA unreported- (LD/372/81)..........................................................................................................................................43
AG Lagos v. Sowande (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 261) 589............................................................................................................................ 52
Aghenghen v. Waghoreghor (1975) 1 SC 1..............................................................................................................................................30
Aikhionbare v. Omorogie (1976) 12 SC 11............................................................................................................................................. 10
Akano v. Ajuwon (1967) NMLR 7................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Akinfolarin v. Akinnola (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 235...........................................................................................................................22
Akinfolarin v. Akinnola(1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 335) 659..........................................................................................................................22
Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam 3PLR/1913/1 (SC-L); (1913) 2 NLR (100).........................................................................................12
Alao v. Ajani (1989) NWLR (Pt.113) 1............................................................................................................................................7, 20, 21
Alli v. Ikusebiala (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 630...........................................................................................................................................25
Amao v. Adigun (1957) WNLR.....................................................................................................................................................................36
Amodu Tijani v. Secretary of Southern Nigeria (1921) AC 399...................................................................................................... 14
Archibong v. Archibong (1947) 18 NLR. 117....................................................................................................................................17, 18
Ashade v. Karimu (1975) CCHJ/11/1977....................................................................................................................................................26
Awojugbagbe Light Industries v. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 390) 379 SC.........................................................................50
Bassey v. Cobham (1924) 5 NLR. 92.....................................................................................................................................................17, 20
Chief Ebiassah v. Ababio (1946) 12 WACA 106......................................................................................................................................36
Chief Okonkwo v. Dr. Okolo (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 79)632...................................................................................................................28
Da Costa v. Ikomi (1968) NSCC vol. 5 309................................................................................................................................................10
Daniel v. Daniel (1956) 1 FSC 50................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 457.......................................................................................................................46
Ekpendu v. Erika (1959) 4 FSC.79...............................................................................................................................................................21
Epelle v. Ojo (1926) 1 NLR 96........................................................................................................................................................................12
Ereku v. Governor of Mid Western State (1974) 4 All NLR 695......................................................................................................53
Erinle v. Adelaja (1969) NSCC Vol 6 212..................................................................................................................................................33
Ezeani and ors v. Ejidike (1964) 1 All NLR 402.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Folarin v. Durojaiye (1988) 1 NWLR (pt. 70)351................................................................................................................................... 29
Folashade v. Duroshola (1961) 1 All NLR 87..........................................................................................................................................25
Francis v. Ibitoye (1976) 12 SC 99................................................................................................................................................................... 6
George v. Fajore (1939) 15 NLR 1................................................................................................................................................................16
Griffin v. Talabi (1948) 12 WACA 372........................................................................................................................................................29
Heubner v A. I. E. & P Company Ltd (2017) 14 NWLR (pt. 1586) 397........................................................................................... 9
Ibrahim v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 615..........................................................................................................................46
Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9- 10 SC 227................................................................................................................................................ 9
Inyang v. Ita and ora (1929) 9 NLR 84.......................................................................................................................................................17
Jacobs v. Oladunni Bros (1935) 12 NLR 1................................................................................................................................................16
James Ochiabuto Nwagwu V. Uche Onyekwere (2016)LCN/9169(CA)....................................................................................... 15
JM Aina and Co. Ltd v. Commissioner for Lands and Housing of Oyo State of Nigeria (1983) 4 NCLR 643........... 43
Kanada v. Governor, Kaduna State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 361....................................................................................................44
Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W. L. R. 1223....................................................................................................................................................10
Kosoko v. Kosoko (1937) 13 NLR 131...................................................................................................................................................18, 19
Kuahen v. Avose..................................................................................................................................................................................................36
Kubuyi v. Odunjo (1926) 7 NLR 51..............................................................................................................................................................29
Lasisi v. Tubu (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. II) 438............................................................................................................................................ 30
Lawson v. Ajibulu (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 195) 44...................................................................................................................................... 53
Lemboye v. Ogunsiji (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 210............................................................................................................................... 45
Leragun v. Funlayo (1956) WNLR..............................................................................................................................................................36
Lewis v. Bankole (1909) 1 NLR 81................................................................................................................................................................16
Majiyagbe v. Attorney General and ors (1957) NRNLR 158.............................................................................................................51
Makinde v. Akinwale (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 645)......................................................................................................................................31
Mgbelekeke Family v. Madam Iyayi Family (unreported)............................................................................................................... 34
Mogaji v. Nuga (1960) 5 FSC 107.................................................................................................................................................................24
Mora v. Nwalusi (1962) 1 All NLR 681; 3PLR/1962/92(FSC)..........................................................................................................11
Nelson v. Nelson (1951) 13 WACA 243.......................................................................................................................................................15
NEPA v. Amusa (1976) 12 SC 99.....................................................................................................................................................................8
Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State (1984) 6 SC. 362......................................................................................................... 43, 44
Nwakobi v. Nzekwu (1961) 1 All NLR 445................................................................................................................................................ 12
Obikoya and Sons Ltd v. The Governor of Lagos State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 50) 385......................................................51, 52
Ochonma v. Unosi (1960) 4 ENLR 107.......................................................................................................................................................34
Odufuye v. Fatoke (1977) LCN/1925(SC); (1977) 4 SC. 11.................................................................................................................28
Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 745.................................................................................................................................37, 47
Ogunnola v. Eiyekole (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 632.................................................................................................................8, 37, 45
Ojo v. Anibire (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 882) 571.......................................................................................................................................... 27
Okechukwu v. Okafor (1961) 1 All NLR 685............................................................................................................................................11
Okoiko v. Esedalue (1974) 3 SC 15........................................................................................................................................................... 7, 36
Olohunku v. Teniola (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 501...............................................................................................................................11
Onasanya v. Shiwoniku(1960) WNLR 166.................................................................................................................................................23
Onbruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799.............................................................................................................................35
Oniah v. Onyia (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 99) 514.............................................................................................................................................32
Onisiwo v. Fagbenro (1954) 21 NLR 3....................................................................................................................................................... 32
Onwuka v. Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 182.......................................................................................................................................38
Onwusike v. Onwusike......................................................................................................................................................................................19
Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184)..............................................................................47, 50, 51, 53
Oshodi v. Aremu JELR 84664 (WACA).....................................................................................................................................................23
Oshodi v. Balogun (1936) 4 WACA 1..........................................................................................................................................................12
Oshola v. Finnish (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 198)192......................................................................................................................................27
Osunrinde v. Ajamogun (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 246) 156........................................................................................................................26
Osuro v. Anjorin (1946) 18 NLR 45..............................................................................................................................................................19
Owoo v. Owoo (1945) 11 WACA 81..........................................................................................................................................................7, 20
Re Hotunu 1 JAL 1889......................................................................................................................................................................................18
Saidi v. Akinwunmi (3PLR/1956/37 (SC)).................................................................................................................................................13
Sateng v. Darkwa (1940) 6 WACA 52...................................................................................................................................................20, 21
Savannah Bank v. Ajilo(1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.97) 305...................................................................................................................... 41, 48
Shell BP v. Abedi & Ors (1974-75) NSCC Vol. 9, 1............................................................................................................................. 31
Sogbesan v. Adebiyi (1941) 16 NLR 26.......................................................................................................................................................17
Solomon v. Mogaji (1982) SC 11...................................................................................................................................................................22
Suleman v. Johnson (1951) 13 WACA 213.............................................................................................................................................. 13
Taiwo v. Akinwunmi (1975) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 202................................................................................................................................33
Taiwo v. Dosumu (1966) NMLR 94............................................................................................................................................................. 19
The Commissioner of Lands v. Kadiri Adagun JELR 80852 (WACA)...........................................................................................9
Ugochukwu v. Cooperative and Commercial Bank (Nig) Ltd (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 524..............................................49
Union Bank v. Ayodare (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 567................................................................................................................... 49
Yaro Ningi v. Dan Katsina (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 177) 76.....................................................................................................................13
THE CONCEPT OF PROPERTY

Quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit

Whatever is attached to land forms part of the land and is subject to the same proprietary rights
as the soil itself.

Francis v. Ibitoye (1976) 12 SC 99

Plaintiff negotiated with defendant to purchase land from the defendant. The contract of sale
was not concluded but plaintiff still went ahead to build on the land (without the defendant's
permission and in the absence of laches and acquiescence on the part of the same). The plaintiff
claimed both the purchase price and the cost of erecting the building .

Held: Based, on the principle of quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit, the plaintiff's claim as
regards to the cost of erection of the building was defeated. He was entitled to no compensation
and the building now belonged to the defendant (but plaintiff was held to be entitled to
recover the amount paid as cost of the land under the tentative contract).

Applicability under customary law

- There's no general rule as to its applicability under customary law. It can only be drawn by
inference.

-The line of cases, however, seem to point to the fact that it is generally applicable under
customary law. Examination of some cases under this head will suffice to prove this.

Okoiko v. Esedalue (1974) 3 SC 15

The Supreme Court held here that a pledgee of land under customary law could not reap the
improvements made on the land by him when the land was redeemed by the pledger.
Ezeani and ors v. Ejidike (1964) 1 All NLR 402
The defendants accepted the plaintiff, who had built on a land of theirs, as tenant. When his
(plaintiff) term was up, he was given a quit notice. To this end, he demolished the house but the
defendants prevented him from taking the building materials away and took it to themselves. The
plaintiff this sued them for conversion.

Held: The defendants were held not to be liable for conversion on the ground that the building
belonged to them as part of the soil.

Sateng v. Darkwa (1940) 6 WACA 52

There was a departure here, for it was held that a store built (by the deceased) on family land
through personal effort was a self-acquired property and could passed to a named beneficiary
under his name.

*Owoo v. Owoo (1945) 11 WACA 81

The court refused to follow Sateng and held that a building erected upon family property
with the testator's own money becomes family property upon the death of the testator.

Alao v. Ajani (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.113) 1

The Supreme Court considered Sateng of doubtful validity and held that any improvement
made on family land belonged to the family

Exceptions to the doctrine

In the case of NEPA v. Amusa (1976) 12 SC 99, the court, per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC,
declared that the application of the doctrine is subject to:

1) Any contract entered into by the parties;

2) The doctrine of equity;

3) Statutory provisions.

LAND RIGHTS

Only Nigerian citizens can apply for customary or statutory right of occupancy under the Land
Use Act

Ogunnola v. Eiyekole (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 632.

One of the declarations the plaintiffs sought against the defendants was that they were entitled to
the customary right of occupancy of the disputed land. The plaintiffs claimed that their ancestor
settled on the disputed land more than two hundred years ago and began to farm there. And that
the respondents were Eguns from Dahomey and came to work for the plaintiff's ancestor on the
land and were tenants on the land.

Held (as regards the issue of foreigners owning right of occupancy):

The Supreme Court found that the land belonged to the plaintiff. Gleaning from S. 1 of the Land
Use Act (LUA), it further held that a non-Nigerian cannot apply for a customary or statutory
right of occupancy.
Heubner v A. I. E. & P Company Ltd (2017) 14 NWLR (pt. 1586) 397.

The plaintiff, a German national, occupied a large expanse of land through the assistance of the
Emir of Zaria. He later sought a right of occupancy over the land but was told that he could not
obtain one under the extant laws, since he was a foreign national. So he paid the purchase price
but obtained the right of occupancy in the name of the defendant company (of which he was the
C.E.O at that time). He later resigned from the company and requested that the right of
occupancy be passed to him. The company declined, claiming the title was in the company's
name. The plaintiff brought an action claiming entitlements to the right of occupancy. His claim
was dismissed both at the court of first instance and at the Court of Appeal. Thus, he appealed
further to the Supreme Court.

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that foreigners cannot own
land in Nigeria under the LUA.

Proof of Ownership
According to the Supreme Court in Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9- 10 SC 227, ownership of
land may be established in any of the following ways:

1) By traditional evidence in form of traditional history

a) The Commissioner of Lands v. Kadiri Adagun JELR 80852 (WACA)

The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgement of the court of first instance, and
accordingly made this appeal. One of the grounds of the appeal was that the trial court wrongly
received evidence with regards to claim of land. The evidence said to be wrongly received
was that of traditional history.

Held (per Graham J.): Evidence was not mis-received

 It is the undoubted practice in this country to accept as admissible in cases as to title to
family land, evidence of the tradition of the family ownership. Literacy among the people
of this country does not go back very far, and the oral tradition is generally the only
evidence available as to ownership of land earlier than the memory of living witnesses.

b) Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W. L. R. 1223

Where both rely on traditional history, their evidence will be tested by reference to the

facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of the two competing
histories is more probable (see also Aikhionbare v. Omorogie (1976) 12 SC 11)

2) Production of document title duly authenticated and executed.

3) Acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough to
warrant ownership.

4) Acts of long possession.

a) *Da Costa v. Ikomi (1968) NSCC vol. 5 309

Although possession gives a presumption of ownership, it cannot stand when another proves a
good title.

5) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in such circumstances rendering it

probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition, be the owner of
the land in dispute.

a) *Okechukwu v. Okafor (1961) 1 All NLR 685

The plaintiffs were held to be entitled to declaration over disputed land because they were able
to prove that they possessed and enjoyed the land adjoining the disputed land.
Right of Prescription under Customary Law
Generally, right of prescription exists not under customary law

a) *Mora v. Nwalusi (1962) 1 All NLR 681; 3PLR/1962/92(FSC) - The land in dispute was
agreed by the parties as one which was got by conquest. The issue in the case, however, was who
the victors of the conquest were. This would determine who had title to the land. The plaintiffs
averred that their tribe had fought in alliance with several tribes to conquer the original
occupants of the now disputed land and their tribe occupied the land until their possession was
disturbed by men from the tribe of the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, denied the
claim of the plaintiff and averred instead that their tribe was the conqueror of the said land and
they occupied the land until the plaintiffs disturbed their possession.

Held (with regards to prescription): "There is in Nigeria no law corresponding to the English
rule of prescription for conferring a title to land."- per Lord Evershed

b) Olohunku v. Teniola (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 501

Per Ogundare JCA:

Long possession by the head of the family does not confer ownership on him, as Yoruba law and
custom does not recognize prescriptive title as is done under English or Sharia law.

Exception
The court will not apply the general customary law rule in circumstances where injustice will be
done to an innocent party who has been in continuous and undisturbed possession for many
years to the knowledge of the owner and in the belief that he has a valid title to the land.

a) Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam 3PLR/1913/1 (SC-L); (1913) 2 NLR (100)

 The plaintiffs’ appeal against the defendant failed on the grounds that, though the
plaintiffs were the true owners of the land, the defendants had been in possession of the
land and collecting rents from it for a period of 21 years, with full knowledge and
acquiescence of the plaintiffs.

But the rule in Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam can only apply if all of the following conditions are
met:

I) The defendant is an adverse possessor, stricto sensu.

a) *Epelle v. Ojo (1926) 1 NLR 96

The plaintiff's title claim through the defendant's acquiescence failed because the plaintiff was a
customary tenant.

II) The defendant possessed the land under a mistaken belief that he had title to it.

a) *Nwakobi v. Nzekwu (1961) 1 All NLR 445

The defence of acquiescence did not avail the defendants because they knew upon their
entering into possession of the land that they were trespassers.

III) The plaintiff had knowledge of the adverse possession but acquiesced in it

In the case of family or community, knowledge by important members of the family or

community will suffice.

*Oshodi v. Balogun (1936) 4 WACA 1

The family was held not be guilty of laches/acquiescence because important members of the
family had no knowledge of the adverse possession.

Saidi v. Akinwunmi (3PLR/1956/37 (SC))

Here the adverse possession was so conspicuous, that it could not be said that the family in
question had no knowledge of the adverse possession. It was further held that even if they were
successful in proving the land was theirs, they would lose it to laches and acquiescence

IV) The defendant as a result of reliance the plaintiff's acquiescence has been led to expend
money or alter his position significantly.

Suleman v. Johnson (1951) 13 WACA 213.

V) No extenuating factor exist which negatives the acquiescence

VI) The length of time is sufficiently long enough to establish a prima facie evidence of
acquiescence on the plaintiff's part.

Islamic Law on Prescription

Right of prescription under Islamic law is known as Hauzi. The principle is to the effect that
when a person has been in undisturbed possession of land for a period of ten years or more and
the true owner stands by, doing nothing to claim the property, and the parties are not related by
blood, the person acquires title by prescription.

Yaro Ningi v. Dan Katsina (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 177) 76

STOPPED:

The appellant claimed to have inherited the disputed land from his father, who in turn inherited it
from his own father. The respondent contended that the land was gifted to him and he has been
in undisturbed possession for 21 years.
Held: The principle of Hauzi applied. The appellant had slept over his right, if he had any,
because more than ten years has passed, and he had failed to dispute the possession of the land
by the respondent. The appellant's case was even more prejudiced by the fact that he was a
neighbour to the respondent throughout those time.

CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE SYSTEM

Ownership of Land under Customary Law

Land belongs to the village, community or family, the chief or head of the community or family
holding it in trust for the corporate unit.

Amodu Tijani v. Secretary of Southern Nigeria (1921) AC 399

The appellant was the head of a community at the time the government acquired a land
belonging to the said community. The appellant sought to receive compensation as though the
land belonged to him personally.

Held: The Privy Council upheld the decision of the court below that the appellant was
entitled to compensation on the basis of his having right of control and management and not on
the basis of absolute ownership

Burden of Proving Exclusive Ownership where Land is a Family Land

James Ochiabuto Nwagwu V. Uche Onyekwere (2016)LCN/9169(CA)

-"Where there is evidence that land is a family property or communally owned, any party who
asserts right of exclusive ownership of same, personally, has the duty of proving how the family
land or communal land reverted to him, personally."

*Meaning of family*

How Family Property can be Created

a) By way of declaration of an intention to create family property inter vivos by the founder of
the land.

I) Nelson v. Nelson (1951) 13 WACA 243

A testator, before his death , orally disposed self-acquired property to his eldest son for
himself and his siblings.

Held: This created family property.

b) By purchase of land soil with family fund

Nelson v. Nelson- Family fund spent for purchase family property becomes the property of the
family, notwithstanding the mode of conveyance.

c) By devise i.e. declaration of in a will

I) Jacobs v. Oladunni Bros (1935) 12 NLR 1

Testator devised land on his children, expressing in the will that the land be retained as family
property.
Held: Family property was created. The court rejected the contention that the Will created and
English tenancy in common.

II) George v. Fajore (1939) 15 NLR 1

Testator devised property to his children and their heirs and assigns as tenants in common
without any power of alienation.

Held: Notwithstanding the use of "tenants in common", an English terminology, the testator
intended that the property should be held under native law and custom as family property.

( https://biulsg.wordpress.com/2019/11/25/land-law-first-
semester/#:~:text=In%20George%20V%20Fajore%2C%20property,same%20to%20any%20part%
20thereof.)

d) By way of conveyance

e) By way of intestacy

Abeje v. Ogundairo (1967) LLR 9

Where a landowner whose estate is governed by customary law dies interstate, the land devolves
upon his heirs as family property, notwithstanding there's only a sole heir.

Family Head: Ways of Appointment

1) Traditional Method

Lewis v. Bankole (1909) 1 NLR 81

It was held that at death of the founder of a family, the "Dawodu" ( i. e. the eldest surviving son)
is the proper person to succeed the headship of the family and upon the death of the "Dawodu",
the eldest surviving child takes over, be it a male ♂ or female♀ ( THE COURT WAS
SPEAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF LAGOS CUSTOMARY LAW).
2) By popular acclamation of the family members.

Inyang v. Ita and ora (1929) 9 NLR 84

It was held that the family has the discretion to choose any member to be the head of the family,
and this could be done by election.

3) Nomination by the last deceased holder on his death bed or by will-

In Sogbesan v. Adebiyi (1941) 16 NLR 26:

The family founder had unfettered right to appoint whomever he wills as family head, even if
the person is a stranger.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.
php/JLPG/article/download/24479/25055&ved=2ahUKEwjoufH8ou73AhVJxIUKHbiJDVoQFno
ECEQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2s7YVZU4_NJNK8SMDL-1LI (accessed 20th May 2022)

Status, Rights and Duties of Family Head

The position of the family head is analogous to that of a trustee under common law.

1) Bassey v. Cobham (1924) 5 NLR. 92

It was held that the family head's position is analogous to that of a trustee and the members that
of beneficiaries. Any member may thus claim his right in respect to the land if the family head
neglects to assert such right.

2) Archibong v. Archibong (1947) 18 NLR. 117

It was held that the family head's obligations were as those of a trustee but not as high as it.
Duty to Account
This subject is one which is controversial but an examination of some cases will help us to
determine whether it is the law that family head has a duty to account or otherwise.

1) Re Hotunu 1 JAL 1889

It was held that the head of the family as an administrator had not duty to render strict account to
the members of the family. The court however expressed reservations as to whether the rule was
an equitable one.

2) Kosoko v. Kosoko (1937) 13 NLR 131.

Plaintiff sued defendants for account of rent and mense profits of the family property, which the
defendants had managed for over 40 years. It was found that the plaintiff had not the support of
the other family members in bringing the action. Moreover, he had absented himself from the
family meetings for over 30 years.

Held (per Carey, J): Where a member of a family leaves his country and dissociates himself
from his family for a very long time, it would be most unreasonable to demand as of right
account of that period. The claim of the plaintiff is further prejudiced by the fact that he had not
the support of the other family members in bringing the action. He can thus not bring an action to
account, unless he can point to a definite delinquency amounting to a breach of trust on the part
of the family representatives.

3) Archibong v. Archibong

Plaintiff sued the defendants to account for compensation money paid to the family upon
the compulsory acquisition of the family land by the government.
Held: Family head was liable to account give account and pay over what was due.

4) Osuro v. Anjorin (1946) 18 NLR 45

Plaintiff claimed an account of rents and profits from the defendant family head. Prior to this
period the defendant had constantly been accounting to the plaintiff but had failed to do so
since 1923. The defendant relied on the statutory limitation of six years in which to sue for an
account as a defence.

Held: Substantial injuries would be done to the plaintiff by a strict adherence to the English law
of limitation; judgement should be given to the plaintiff for an account and payment over of
what might be found due.

5) Onwusike v. Onwusike - Family head was held to be under duty to accomplish fit all rents
received by him.

6) Taiwo v. Dosumu (1966) NMLR 94.

The Supreme Court held that the principle of non-accountability of family head is not a judicially
noticed custom in Nigeria as in Ghana and that Kosoko v. Kosoko did not decide that family head
has no duty to account under any circumstance.

The rule that can thus be inferred from the line of cases is thus:

1) The non-accountability principle is not a judicially noticed custom in Nigeria; and,

2) The issue of non-accountability depends on the circumstances of the case. For example, if the
family head had behaved delinquently, he may be held to be accountable.

Improvement on Family Land

The fact that a family member effects an improvement on a family property from his private
means does not divorce the property from the family.
(https://biulsg.wordpress.com/2019/11/25/land-law-first-semester/- accessed 23/05/2022; 6:02AM)

1) Sateng v. Darkwa (1940) 6 WACA 52

The court held that a store built by a deceased member, through personal efforts was a self-
acquired property and could pass to the beneficiaries under his will.

Comment: This case seems to be a stand-alone case, for other decisions, as we will see, have
refused to follow it.

2) Bassey v. Cobham (1924) 24 NLR 92

It was held that the fact that a family member reclaimed the marshy family land out of his
own pocket did not confer on him a special interest in the land.

3) Owoo v. Owoo (1945) 11 WACA 81

The court refused to follow Sateng v. Darkwa and stated rather that the building which
was erected with the testator's own money to the knowledge of the members of the family
that he was erecting it for his own use will upon the death of the testator become
family property.

4) Alao v. Ajani (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 113) 1.

Plaintiff sued, claiming that the disputed building is family property. The building was
erected by the first and second defendant, who afterwards leased it to the third and fourth
defendants without the consent of the other family members.

Held: The court rejected Sateng v. Darkwa, holding that any improvement made on family land
belonged to the family.
 Alienation of Family Property

1) A family member cannot alone alienate family land

Alao v. Ajani

The Supreme Court held that while it is very true that pieces of land may be allowed for use
to family members, the allottees have only the right to occupy and use the land. They cannot
alienate the said land without the consent of the family.

2) How to alienate validly

For alienation to be valid , concurrence of the family head and the principal members must be
obtained.

Ekpendu v. Erika (1959) 4 FSC. 79

The plaintiff, who was the head of the family brought an action for a declaration of title to land,
damages for trespass and injunction. The main issue in the case was whether the 3rd defendant
who leased the land in dispute to the 1st and 2nd defendants had acquired absolute title to the
land, divorced from that of the family, so that he could validly alienate it.

Held: A sale of land carried out by the family head without the he concurrence of the principal
members is voidable and one carried out by the principal members without the family head's
concurrence is void ab initio.

Akinfolarin v. Akinnola (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 235

The land in question belonged to the Oloka Chieftancy family. After the death of accredited head
of the family, one Adegoju paraded himself as the head of the family. Another, one Akinboye,
also declared himself to be the head of the family. There were thus two rival claims to the
headship of the family. Adegoju with some family members sold the land to the
plaintiffs/appellants. Sometime after this, Akinboye was appointed by the requisite authority as
family head. And he, along with some other members of the family sold the land to the
respondents. The appellant brought an action against the defendant, claiming declaration of title,
damages for trespass and injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the appellant

Held: Family land can only be validly transferred if the head of the family, along with the
principal members concur. If the family head transfers without the principal member's consent it
is voidable. And if the principal members alienates without the family head's concurrence, it is
void.

PS: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal. You can find the case here
Akinfolarin v. Akinnola(1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 335) 659

Qualifications
The rule that the family head's alienation of the land without the principal members is voidable is
subject to three important conditions, in which case it will be void:

1) Where the family head alienates the land as if it were his own.

a) Solomon v. Mogaji (1982) SC 11

Family head sold the family land in question as his own and other family members sued him.

Held: The Supreme Court set the sale aside, declaring it to be void, on the grounds that the
family head cannot give what he doesn't have, as expressed in the maxim, nemo dat quod non
habet
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.africanscholarpublicatio
ns.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HAJECM_VOL13_NO4_DEC2020-
17.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjBg7LRivv3AhVw57sIHebqDhAQFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3gQlA
k2IDymDbGqbHmJoyw (accessed 25th May, 5:40PM) ).

But the court may not void the sale where there's no intention to defraud- Akano v. Ajuwon
(1967) NMLR 7

2) Where the family head gifts the land without the concurrence of the principal
members. It is immaterial if the gift was bestowed of on a family member.

a) Oshodi v. Aremu JELR 84664 (WACA)

The court rejected the submission of the counsel for the respondent that the head of the family
can validly gift land to a family member, without the family's concurrence , holding that there is
no such custom ounder the Lagos customary law and if there was, he had failed to prove it.

3) Where there is partition of the land by the family head without the principal members
assenting to it.

*- Onasanya v. Shiwoniku(1960) WNLR 166- to be reported in school*

Capacity to consent to alienation

Consent requirement must be that of an adult but minors can consent through their loco parentis.

Does the common law principle that a stranger cannot apply to set aside a
deed he is not a party applicable to family land?
No it doesn't.
Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 417

One of the grounds of appeal of the appellant was that since the plaintiff (a principal member of
the family that owned the land in question) was not a party to the signatory to the conveyance
which sold the land to him, he could not apply to the court to set the sale aside.

Held: The court, per Karibi-Whyte JSC, held that the common law principle that only a party to
a deed can apply to set it aside applies not to family property. This is because of the communal
ownership of family property, for family land at customary law belonged to all members of the
family, past, present and future.

Setting aside of a voidable title

A voidable transaction is valid until it is set aside by the court. Whether the court will set aside a
voidable sale depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, in the absence of fraud or
any other vitiating element, the court will not set aside a voidable title, unless:

1) The claimant must have acted timeously i.e. there must be no delay or laches on his part.

Mogaji v. Nuga (1960) 5 FSC 107

Here the claimant brought an action ten years after the family head had sold the land to the
respondent (family head sold without consulting some principal members of the family).

Held: Members of the family who were not party to the sale and knew about it must avail
themselves of their right timeously and since nothing was done for ten years, it was too late
to avail themselves of their right to set aside the sale.

2) There must have been no intervention of bona fide third party interest resulting from the
plaintiff's delay and inaction

The third party must however seek to be joined in the suit, else his interest will be disregarded-
Adejumo v. Ayantegebe
3) There must be no acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff

Adjeumo v. Ayantegbe One of the grounds in which the sale and conveyance of family property
to the third party purchasers was set aside was that they (the third parties) were duly warned
through a newspaper publication and letter by the Plaintiff/Respondent which they
ignored- these thus negatived acquiescence on the Plaintiff/Respondent's part.

a) Non-consenting parties to a voidable transaction may however ratify it, thus making the
hitherto defective title become valid- Folashade v. Duroshola (1961) 1 All NLR 87

b) Until a voidable sale is set aside by an order of court, any subsequent sale by the family head,
even with the concurrence of all the principal members is void.

Alli v. Ikusebiala (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 630

The family head conveyed family property to the plaintiff without the consent of the principal
members (thus making the title voidable). He subsequently conveyed the same land to the
defendant, this time with the consent of the principal members. The plaintiff brought an action
for declaration of title and trespass.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the second sale to the defendant was void. The rationale for
this is that a voidable title is valid until it is set aside by a court order. Since the plaintiff had a
valid but voidable title, the family had no title to convey the said land to the defendant.

Use of Power of Attorney

A) Rationale

This arose as a result of the need to ensure certainty of title and thus protect prospective
purchasers from fraudulent machinations of family members posing as either the family head or
a principal member. Thus, where a power of attorney is executed in favour of some family
members (or any other person), only those persons can deal with the land.
B) Validity

For a Power of Attorney to be valid, it must be executed by the family head, if not it will be
void and it does not matter that the donors of the Power of Attorney are referred to as accredited
representatives of the family.

Osunrinde v. Ajamogun (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 246) 156

Some members of a family, describing themselves as "principal members and accredited

representatives of the family", executed Power of Attorney in favour of eight other members
of the family. Pursuant to the Power of Attorney, the donees leased the land to the first defendant.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and thus held that since the
Power of Attorney given to the eight donees was void, nothing done thereunder by the donees
of that power could be valid.

The family head is required to execute the Power of Attorney, notwithstanding he is one of the
donees or the sole donee- Ashade v. Karimu (1975) CCHJ/11/1977

C) Effect of Donation

The Power of Attorney supersedes the right of any individual member of the family to deal
with the land. The consent of the principal members or the head of the family is no longer
needed for alienation of the said property.

Ojo v. Anibire (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 882) 571

The appellant challenged the sale of the family by the donees of the Power of Attorney without
his consent as a principal member.
Held: His consent was no longer required, as the donation of a Power of Attorney had overrides
the right of individual member of the family over the land in dispute.

D) Can land still be sold Independently of the Power of Attorney after its execution?

The family head can alienate the land during the dormancy of the Power of Attorney.

Oshola v. Finnish (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 198)192

Family head sold a land to a corporation (while a Power of Attorney was subsisting) and a year
later the same land was sold to the appellant via the Power of Attorney.

Held: While any sale under a Power of Attorney was valid, the sale is equally valid where the
donor sells outside the Power of Attorney and the only issue that may arise is one of priority in
the competing cases.

Determination of family property

Family property ay be determined n any of the following ways:

1) Absolute Conveyance of the family land.

2) Partition

3) Government Acquisition

CUSTOMARY LAND TRANSACTIONS

The customary land transactions we will here examine are: sale, gift and borrowing of land,
customary tenancy and customary pledge.

Sale of Land
Meaning: It is an outright purchase of land for money from the grantor by the grantee. The
totality of the vendor's interest is transferred to the purchaser.

Validity

As was held in Chief Okonkwo v. Dr. Okolo (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 79)632, for a sale to be valid
under customary law, the following steps must be taken:

A) Payment of purchase price coupled with actual delivery of the property.

a) Payment of purchase price must be in full. Sale is only complete on the day the full purchase
price is paid

Odufuye v. Fatoke (1977) LCN/1925(SC); (1977) 4 SC. 11

Plaintiff sold his land for 150 pounds to the defendant. The defendant let the plaintiff into
possession on the part payment of 120 pounds , for he (defendant) had promised to pay the
balance soon. But he defaulted. So the plaintiff sued for the possession of the land.

Held: The court found for the plaintiff, holding that sale wasn't complete until the full price was
paid.

b) Further, for the sale to be valid, payment and actual delivery of possession must be
contemporaneous

Griffin v. Talabi (1948) 12 WACA 372

It was held here that there was no sale under native law and custom, as the respondent paid the
purchase price but did not enter into possession of the land.

Adelaja v. Alhaji Salo (1957) SCNLR 37

Land was conveyed to the respondent but he was unable to obtain possession it.
Held: "For the transfer of ownership to be effective under the native law and custom, it is
necessary that the purchaser should obtain possession"- per De Lestang F.J.

B) Concurrence of the vendors

C) Property must be handed down in the presence of witnesses

Folarin v. Durojaiye (1988) 1 NWLR (pt. 70)351

The one from whom the appellant bought the land from had no persons present to witness the
sale of the land. Further there was no handing over of possession to the appellant's predecessor to
the land.

Held: Appellant had not obtained a valid title to the land.

NB: A sale of land may be subject to certain rights of natives in that area.

Kubuyi v. Odunjo (1926) 7 NLR 51 - It as held that under Awori custom, the right to reap palm
fruits was confined to natives of Awori and thus, the right of the purchaser was subject to
the right of the right of the previous tenant to remain on the land under customary law.

Gift of Land
It is an absolute transfer of land from the grantor to the grantee. Unlike sale, it involves no
consideration.
Borrowing of Land
A family with excess lands loans lands to such who have need of it, usually for farming
purpose. The duration of interest is calculated, in most cases, by reference to the purpose for
which the grant is made. Here land cannot be used for permanent purposes like planting of cash
crops, erection of buildings. If it is, the court will imply a customary tenancy.

Adeyemo v. Ladipo (1958) WNLR 138- The court held that a temporary grant of land for
building purposes was unknown to customary law.

Customary Tenancy
It arises where a customary landowner grants to another at customary law, the right of
occupation and use of land in return for the grantee's recognition of the grantor's title and
payment of tribute.

A) Legal nature - Customary tenants are not gifted the land, neither are they borrowers or
lessees of the land, they are grantees - per Elias CJN in Aghenghen v. Waghoreghor (1975) 1
SC 1.

B) Incidence- The incidence of customary tenancy is payment of tribute- Lasisi v. Tubu (1974) 1
All NLR (Pt. II) 438.

C) Can a customary tenancy exist without payment of tribute?

Yes it can.

Makinde v. Akinwale (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 645) - The Supreme Court held that it is not unknown
that a customary tenancy can exist without payment of tribute. So long as it can be shown that
the landowner did not grant the land absolutely to the defendant and he did not also grant it to
him for temporary use, a customary tenancy relationship will be implied.
D) Nature of right of customary tenant

The customary tenant has the right of exclusive possession. He can exclude everyone else from
the land, including the overlord, except the agreement permits otherwise. This right also
avails against one who has purchased the grantor's reversionary interest as well as others
claiming through him.

Lasisi v. Tubu (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. II) 438.

A land subject to customary tenancy was sold to a person through whom the respondent claimed
title to the land. One issue was whether a purchaser of the overlord's radical title could
successfully eject the overlord's customary tenant who had settled in the land before the
sale.

Held: Based on the principle of "nemo dat quod non habet" (you cannot give what you don't
have), the Supreme Court held that the purchaser was without power to eject the customary
tenant. He can only step into the shoes of the overlord.

E) How customary tenant should claim against a third party in an action for trespass

A customary tenant must claim as a tenant and not the owner, lest the claim for compensation
also will fail.

Shell BP v. Abedi & Ors (1974-75) NSCC Vol. 9, 1

Here customary tenants were not allowed to claim compensation for damages because they
claimed as owners and not tenants.

F) Customary tenants cannot alienate land without the consent of the overlord

Onisiwo v. Fagbenro (1954) 21 NLR 3.

The court held that the leasing of land by the customary grantees was a misconduct.
G) Customary tenants must not deny the title of their overlord

Where this is done, the tenant will be liable to forfeiture and eviction

Oniah v. Onyia (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 99) 514

Plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendants as customary tenants had forfeited their right to
occupy the land. The plaintiff further sought for recovery of the land, customary tributes and
damages for trespass and an injunction from further trespass by the defendant. The defendant on
the other hand denied that they were customary tenants, declaring that they were the owners of
the disputed land from time immemorial. They further averred that the plaintiff's ancestors
settled on the land by the grace of the defendant's ancestors

Held: The court found for the plaintiff, holding that they were entitled to their claim for
forfeiture, due to the gross denial of their title by the defendants who were customary tenants:

"It is clear from the proceedings in this case that Defendants did not claim any relief from
forfeiture. They remained throughout the trial obdurate in the challenge of the title of their
overlord and denied ever paying tribute. They admitted their egregious acts of trespass based on
their claim to title and even claim to have sheltered their overlord. Their conduct remained
unrepentant. Plaintiffs claimed for forfeiture and expressly pleaded it and established the claim
of the evidence. They are therefore entitled to the claim for forfeiture." (Per Karibi-Whyte JSC)

H) Determination of customary tenancy

Customary tenancy may come to an end in any of the following ways:

I) Accomplishment of the purpose of the tenancy.

II) Permanent abandonment of the land by the customary tenant.

III) Forfeiture.
It is a question of fact whether or not the acts of a tenant amount to a misbehaviour. It is a
question of law whether such act of misbehaviour will amount to a forfeiture.

The list of acts amounting to a forfeiture is not closed e.g. refusal to pay tribute, alienation under
the claims of ownership, denial of the title of the overlord etc.

a) How a denial of title can entail a forfeiture

The denial must have been manifested and exhibited over a long period of time as to constitute a
determination on the part of the tenant to claim and maintain the land as his own.

Erinle v. Adelaja (1969) NSCC Vol 6 212.

The Supreme Court held that the customary tenant's consistent conduct, exhibited for almost 30
years, manifested a determination to claim the land as his own and must therefore incur
forfeiture.

Taiwo v. Akinwunmi (1975) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 202.

The Supreme Court granted a claim for forfeiture here. In granting the claim, the court took
into consideration that for three quarters of a century, the tenants had in one form or the other
disputed the overlord's title.

b) A claim for forfeiture is not automatic, the overlord just take necessary to steps to enforce
his right of forfeiture in court- Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (pt. 190) 130

I) Kola Tenancy

Description - Land is granted permanently to the grantee in return for kola or other token
payment as acknowledgement of the grantor's title.

Kola tenants pay no tribute, their only obligation is limited to the first payment. They can
exercise limited right of disposal but cannot completely alienate the land.
Daniel v. Daniel (1956) 1 FSC 50 .

"Once it is admitted that the property is held under a Kola tenancy, the one thing which the
holder cannot do under native customary law is complete alienation." - per Foster-Sutton FCJ

Granting of Kola tenancy is not synonymous with a sale.

Ochonma v. Unosi (1960) 4 ENLR 107

The plaintiff granted land to the defendant for no stated period for the defendant to carry out an
oil processing business in the land. The defendant gave a total sum of twenty -eight pounds as
Kola. After some twenty years, the defendant claimed that the transaction was a sale to him.

Held: The transaction was a Kola tenancy and not a sale. The intention that can be garnered from
the transaction as in favour of a Kola tenancy and not a sale.

Before the promulgation of the Kola Tenancy Law, the grantor had no right to any money
made from the land by the grantor except it is agreed otherwise or there's an established
custom to that end.

Mgbelekeke Family v. Madam Iyayi Family (unreported)

The plaintiffs sued a kola tenant's successor in title, who had leased the land for declaration of
title to the land as well as sharing of half of the rent.

Held: The plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration sought but were not entitled to a claim a
proportionate part of the rent in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

Customary pledge

A customary pledge occurs when the owner-occupier (pledgor) transfers possession of his land
to another (the pledgee) in other to secure money or money's worth. It is different from
the English system of mortgage in that while its English counterpart confers proprietary rights on
the mortgagee, it confers only a possessory right to the customary mortgagee (pledgee). Thus,
while in a pledge, the lender has possession and the borrower has ownership, in a mortgage, the
lender has ownership and the borrower possession. The essence of a customary pledge is
delivery of possession.

Adjei v. Chief Dabanka (1930) 1 WACA 63

The plaintiff in order to secure a specific sum of money for loan deposited the title deed of his
premises to the defendant's predecessor in title and at the same time sought to grant the same his
interest in the premises to the defendant by an informal document. The principal condition in the
said document was that the plaintiff will remain in possession and the property would pass
absolutely to the defendant's predecessor in title if the plaintiff defaulted in the repayment of the
loan granted him.

Held: The transaction was not a pledge because the plaintiff was to remain in possession. It was
an equitable mortgage which entitled the plaintiff to still redeem.

"It is an essential element of native mortgage that premises should be given the mortgagee the
time when the transaction takes place between the parties."- per Michelin J.

Right of redemption under a pledge is absolute and cannot be defeated by agreement or lapse
of time- "once a pledge, always a pledge".

Onbruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799.

The plaintiffs claimed a declaration of title to the land. There was no dispute that the plaintiffs
were the original owners of the land. But while the plaintiffs claimed the land was pledged to the
defendant, the defendants claimed that it was sold to them.

Held: The Supreme Court, allowing the plaintiffs' appeal, held that in customary law, the pledgor
has right of redemption and it doesn't matter for how long the land had been pledged.

Leragun v. Funlayo (1956) WNLR 167 - a pledged land which enured for thirty years was held
to be redeemable.
Chief Ebiassah v. Ababio (1946) 12 WACA 106- It was held that the native custom that a
mortgagee in possession can be removed as soon as the mortgage debt had been satisfied was
not repugnant to natural justice and equity although the mortgagee had been in possession
for possibly sixty years.

A pledgee is expected to put the land into ordinary use. If the pledgee plants or erects economic
trees in the absence of any express agreement , he does so at his own risk.

Okoiko v. Esedalue (1974) 3 SC 15- Pledgee of land was held not to be able to benefit from the
improvement he made from the land when the pledgor redeemed the land.

Where improvements have been made before the land was pledged, the pledgee is liable to
account for any unjustified benefit derived from the improvements.

Kuahen v. Avose- It was held the money the pledgee got from economic trees ought to be
accounted for so as to offset the money owed under the pledge.

Amao v. Adigun (1957) WNLR 55- The court granted the plaintiff's claim for an account of
rents collected by the defendant pledgee while the same was in possession the plaintiff's land.
EFFECTS OF THE LAND USE ACT ON CUSTOMARY LAND
TENURE SYSTEM IN NIGERIA

Crux of chapter: This chapter shows how the advent of the Land Use Act (LUA) has affected
the pre-existing customary land tenure system.

The Act preserves all pre-existing customary land tenure system but subjects it to the LUA. Thus
only those principles of customary land tenure system consistent with the Act are sustained.
Further, by S. 1 of the LUA, ownership of land, under any system (including customary law), is
subject to the radical title of the governor.

Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 745

"It must be noted that the Land Use Act never **set** out to abolish all existing titles and rights
to possession of land. Rather, when such rights or titles relate to developed lands in urban areas,
the possessor or owner of that right or title is deemed to be a statutory grantee of a right of
occupancy under section 34(2) of the Act. Where it is non-urban land, the holder or owner under
customary law or otherwise is deemed to be a deemed grantee of a right of occupancy by the
appropriate Local Government, under section 36(2)."- per Nnameka Agu JSC

Ogunnola v. Eiyekole (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 632

The Supreme Court here held that land under customary law still maintained its character even
though it is now under the governor's dominion.

A customary landowner prior to the commencement of the Act is deemed to be the holder of a
right of occupancy. The LUA does not enlarge the right of a customary tenant.

Onwuka v. Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 182.

The Supreme Court held, per Oputa JSC, that it was not the aim of the LUA to transform a
tenant into an owner merely because he was occupying the land.

The issue of ownership of land in non-urban areas used for

agricultural purposes before the Act

On whom does S. 36(2), (3) of the LUA confer a customary right of as regards land in non-
urban areas being used for agricultural purposes immediately before the commencement of
the Act?

It depends on the circumstances of the case. It could either be the holder or occupier that is
entitled to it. The land owner cannot be entitled to it if at the commencement of the Act, he was
not using it for agricultural purpose. It will thus be the occupier who was using the land for
agricultural purpose that will be entitled to it (see S. 51 LUA, for the definition of
holder/occupier). The case of Abioye v. Yakubu is most instructive here.

Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 190) 130

The ancestors of the plaintiffs many years ago permitted the ancestors of the defendants, who
were nomadic Fulanis, to settle on their land as customary tenants for farming and grazing
purposes. The ancestors of the defendants and the defendants were paying tribute to the ancestors
of plaintiffs and the plaintiffs. But they stopped doing so about ten years before the action was
instituted.

The action was instituted because the defendants erected 3 big sign boards without the plaintiffs’
consent. The inscription on the sign board read “GAA IRAPA IDERO IFEDAPO”, suggesting
that the land belongs to the Irapa village and that the defendants had been put upon the land by
the Irapa people. The plaintiffs, who referred to the land as Gaa kekere or Gaa oke, thus
instituted an action, seeking several declarations and an order to remove the offending signposts
. The plaintiffs however sued not for forfeiture.
The trial court held in favour of the plaintiff. The court rejected the submission of the defendants'
counsel that by the virtue Ss. 34 and 36 of the LUA, the defendants were entitled to hold the land
in dispute. It held that neither of the sections intended to rob a landlord to pay a tenant;
that a before a person can claim a land as his, it is implied that he is clothed with lawful
title and the defendants did not possess such before the coming of the Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld all the findings of the trial court but reversed ◀ the decision
granting a declaration of title to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs’ appeal to the Apex Court.

Held: The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs. As
regards the import of S. 36(2), (3), the court held that a customary tenant is deemed to have been
granted a customary right of occupancy over a land in which he was using for agricultural
purposes. But if it was the landowner that was using it for agricultural purposes before the Act,
he will be deemed to have been granted a customary right of occupancy.

On whether the deemed right of occupancy granted to the customary tenant abolished the
customary rights of the land owner (i.e. right to tribute, forfeiture and recognition of reversionary
title), it held negative on the grounds that there is no provision in the Act that abolishes the
customary owner right; that what the LUA did was to remove absolute title from landowners and
vest them in the governor of the state. It does not destroy the relationship between customary
owners and customary tenants

"In the absence of express provision in the Act divesting the customary owner of his rights or
extinguishing the same, Section 36 ought to be strictly construed so as to preserve the rights of
the customary owner."- per Bello CJN

"It (the Act) never sets out to disturb the relationship of customary overlord and customary
tenant other than the vesting of the legal estate in the land in the Governor."- per Obaseki, JSC,
empahsis added

"Where, as in this case, the customary owner had let the land to a customary tenant whose
interest was subsisting at the time of the promulgation of the Act, then the customary tenant is
entitled to the certificate of occupancy, but subject to the pre-existing rights of, and obligations
to, his overlord. The overlord can still validly impugn the tenant's right of occupancy if he
commits any act which would have amounted to a misbehaviour under the old law, according to
the original terms of the grant between him and his overlord." - per Nnaemeka- Agu, JSC

"To say that the Land Use Act has abolished the contractual relationship between customary
owners and customary tenants is to say that with that legislation the customary owner is
deprived of his property without a hearing. It is against the tenets of natural justice. The
fundamental right to own property cannot be supplanted without adequate provision for
compensation. I cannot see any section of the Act which deprives the customary owners of their
rights to tributes or Ishakole. We cannot and must not create obstacles not intended by the Act. It
will be a judicial obstacle."- per Olatawura, JSC

A certificate of occupancy without a valid title to land

Under customary law, if a person does not have a valid title to land, he cannot lay a claim on or
transfer the same solely on the strength of a certificate of occupancy.

Adetokunbo Ademola v. Amao (1982) OGSLR 273

The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants, claiming damages over a developed
piece of land, for trespass. The plaintiff traced root of his title to one John Amoo, whom he said
sold the land to another, from which his father bought the land and the plaintiff inherited the land
from his father. The defendants on their part averred that they got they land through the
descendants of the said Amoo and obtained a Certificate of Occupancy from the governor
afterwards. They also contended that since the plaintiff did not object to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy when he was required to do so through an advertisement in a
newspaper, he could no longer complain.

Held: Judgement was pronounced in the plaintiff’s favour, as it was evident that the defendants
had no title to the said land. They were basing their claim on the strength of the certificate of
occupancy issued them by the governor. The court declared their Certificate of Occupancy
invalid, null and void, holding that a Certificate of Occupancy that is based on nothing
cannot stand, it will collapse.

Effect of a right of occupancy

A right of occupancy, statutory or customary, creates priority of estate, rendering any subsequent
Certificate of Occupancy issued in respect of the same piece of land, null and void, unless the
right of occupancy is validly revoked before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to
another. (https://sholankeandsholanke.com/articles/occupancy.pdf)

Adebiyi v. Williams (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 61

It was held that a holder of a right of occupancy under the LUA is as of right entitled to a
Certificate of Occupancy and neither the Governor nor the Local Government has a right to
divest such land from a person in whom the land was properly vested by issuing a Certificate of
Occupancy over the land to another person in whom the land was not vested.

Any form of transfer of right of occupancy without the governor or the local government’s
consent, as the case may be is unlawful, even if the transferor is a deemed grantee of such right
of occupancy – Savannah Bank v. Ajilo (see the Land Use Act page for a report of the case)

A customary land owner does not necessarily lose his reversionary interest because the
Certificate of Occupancy granted the tenant is revoked:

“…where a Certificate of Occupancy is granted to a tenant who is subject to customary tenancy,

the overlord retains his right as a reversioner in the case the Certificate of Occupancy is revoked
for any reason, and the overlord may apply for a grant of a Certificate of Occupancy to him.” –
per Nnaemeka-Agu JSC in Abioye v. Yakubu

THE LAND USE ACT

The Land Use Act (LUA) is an innovative piece of legislation brought about by the military
regime. The Act divested every landowner of absolute title to land, making their title subject to
the radical title of the governor. According to Professor Jelili Omotola, the following are the
objectives which the Act aims to achieve:

“To remove the bitter controversies, resulting at times in loss of lives and limbs, which land is
known to be generating.

To streamline and simplify the management and ownership of land in the country.

To assist the citizenry, irrespective of his social status to realize his ambition and aspiration of
owning the place where he and his family will live a secure and peaceful life.

To enable the government to bring under control the use to which land can be put in all parts of
the country and thus facilitate planning and zoning programmes for particular uses”

Status of the Act

With the transition to a democratic dispensation can a civilian governor exercise the same
powers as his military counterpart?
A number of decision answered in the negative until the Apex Court of the land answered it in
affirmative in Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State (1984) 6 SC. 362

JM Aina and Co. Ltd v. Commissioner for Lands and Housing of Oyo State of Nigeria (1983) 4
NCLR 643 ***

The plaintiff brought an action for a declaration that the defendant’s acquisition of its land is
illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and motivated by bad faith; the same claimed compensation
in the alternative.

Held: The court, finding, for the plaintiff, held that from the time the civilian government was
ushered in in 1979, the LUA, ceased to have any effect whatsoever because the military
governors in whom lands in the states were vested stopped holding office from that time.

AG Lagos v. NEPA unreported- (LD/372/81)

The governor (civilian) claimed that, since by the virtue of the LUA, land is vested in him, the
defendants (an agency of the federal government) acted wrongfully when it entered on a piece of
land in an urban area within the state without seeking his approval.

Held: Since the governor was not a military governor, he had no legal right to impose conditions
for the use of any piece of land in the state by relying on the LUA, until necessary modifications
are made to it.

COMMENT: NKWOCHA’S CASE WOULD EVENTUALLY OVERRIDE THE ABOVE

DECISIONS (AND SIMILAR ONE).

Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State (1984) 6 SC.362 (***https://bscholarly.com/nkwocha-

v-governor-of-anambra-fact-summary-issues-and-judgment/?unapproved=101670&moderation-
hash=a181abd16fc1f8ceec23780b356b601e#comment-101670***)
The civilian governor of Anambra State by the virtue of S.28 of the LUA revoked some plots of
land in which the plaintiff held leasehold interests. The plaintiff brought an action seeking, inter
alia, a declaration that the defendant being a civilian governor had no power to revoke his lease
hold interest in respect of the said plot.

Held: 1) With the ushering in of the democratic regime, the state governor would succeed to the
powers of the military governor under the LUA. Thus land in Anambra state became vested in
the duly elected governor of Anambra State to hold for the benefit of all Nigerians.

2) By virtue of s. 276 of the 1979 Constitution, all land vested in the state military governor are
now vested in the state executive governor.

Where any provision of the LUA is inconsistent with the Consitution

Since the LUA is an existing law and not an integral part of the Consitution, such provision will
be void to the extent of the inconsistency.

Kanada v. Governor, Kaduna State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 361

The governor revoked a right of occupancy granted the plaintiff for overriding public purpose viz,
the establishment of a new market for public purpose. The government offered to pay some
amount of money to the plaintiff as compensation for improvement made on the land. But the
plaintiff averred that the compensation money should be more because the improvement was
worth more. One issue before the court was which will supersede between the LUA and the 1979
Constitution when there was conflict. Specifically, the conflict was between S. 47(2) of the
LUA, which expunged the jurisdiction of any court to inquire into any question concerning the
adequacy of the amount of any compensation, and S. 40(1) (b) of the 1979 Constitution (now S.
44(1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended), which gives one a right of access to a court of
law to determine his interest and the amount of compensation payable. Further the LUA section
just cited was contrary to S. 236 of the 1979 Constitution (now S. 272 under the 1999
Constitution), which conferred unlimited jurisdiction on a state high court to hear any civil
proceeding relating any legal right.
Held: The Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, declared that S. 47(2) of the LUA, which
purported to curtail the rights bestowed by the constitutional provisions quoted above was void
to the extent of its inconsistency.

Lemboye v. Ogunsiji (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 210

Here the Court of Appeal held that S. 47 of the LUA, which purports to deny any person
claiming compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of his property the right to bring
an action before a court of competent jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria was contrary to S. 40 of
the 1979 Constitution and thus void.

Only Nigerians can own a right of occupancy. The governor holds the land for the common
benefit of only Nigerians- Ogunnola v. Eiyekole (1990) 4 NWLR 632. (See topic 2 above for
facts).

Customary Right of Occupancy: Deemed Grant

S. 36 of the LUA makes provisions for any land occupied or held by any person prior to the
commencement of the Act. For the purpose of this section land is classified into agricultural and
developed land.

Developed Land- who is entitled to the right of occupancy?

By virtue of S. 36(4) LUA, it is the holder (owner) of the land.

Agricultural Land- who is entitled to the right of occupancy?

It is the person (be it the holder or another) in occupation of the agricultural land prior to the
commencement of the Act that is entitled to a Customary Right of Occupancy- Abioye v.
Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 190) 130 (see topic 5 above for details of the case).

Inconsistent Grant by the Governor

S. 5(2) of the LUA provides that where the governor grants a statutory right of occupancy over a
land, all existing rights to use or occupy the land prior to the grant becomes extinguished.
A literal interpretation of the above would mean that all existing rights in land, after an
inconsistent grant is made by the governor, are impliedly revoked. This used to be the view held
by many until the decisions of Dantsoho v. Mohammed and Ibrahim v. Mohammed - cases
which are in pari materia.

Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 457

One of the issues in this case was on whom the land would be vested where two holders of the
land trace their title to the same grantor. Apparently, the governor, sometime after issuing a
statutory right of occupancy to the respondent/plaintiff, issued another to the defendant/appellant
in respect of the same land. The counsel for the defendant averred that the equitable principle,
where there are two equities, the first in time prevails, was not applicable here because the LUA
has provided to the contrary by the virtue of S. 5(2).

Held: The Supreme Court rejected the submission of the counsel for the defendant. It declared
that S.5(2) has to be read with other portions of the Act to get the intention of the legislature.
Thus, the governor cannot make a valid subsequent grant of a statutory right of occupancy
without first validly revoking the former by the virtue of S. 28 LUA.

Ibrahim v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 615

The respondent/plaintiff sued the appellant claiming entitlement to the disputed land and
damages for trespass. The respondent had in 1977 applied for and obtained a statutory right of
occupancy from the governor in respect of the said land. The appellant claimed that he bought
the land from a vendor and he obtained a statutory right of occupancy in that regard. The
appellant's Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1988. The appellant claimed that by virtue of
S. 5(2) LUA, he had a better title than the appellant since he was the granted the land subsequent
to respondent.

Held: Like in Dantsoho's case, the court dismissed the claim of the appellant, holding that the
appellant could not have a valid title to the said land unless the governor first validly revoked the
right of occupancy of the plaintiff.
"For a Certificate of Occupancy under the Act to be valid therefore, there must not be in
existence at the time the certificate was issued a statutory owner of the land in dispute who was
not divested of the existing legal interest to the land prior to that grant" - per Kalgo JSC.

The above stated principle applies not only to actual grants, it extends also to deemed grants.

Right of Occupancy v. Lease

A right of occupancy though similar to a lease is not exactly the same as a lease, as the holder of
a right of occupancy enjoys a larger in interest in land than a lessee- Osho v. Foreign Finance
Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184).

Certificate of Occupancy: Evidential Value

A Certificate of Occupancy is merely an evidence of title. Possession of it, although raises the
presumption of title, is no conclusive evidence of title. Where the title is defective, then it is no
more than a mere piece of title.

Adetokunbo Ademola v. Amao (see Topic 5 above for case details).

Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 745

The plaintiff brought a claim for damages and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant
from entering the land in dispute. He based his claim on a Certificate of Occupancy issued him
by the government. The defendant on his part denied not his trespass to the land but averred that
the land was his by inheritance. The trial court found for the plaintiff. But the Court of Appeal
reversed ◀ the decision.

Held: The Supreme Court held upheld the lower court's decision, on the grounds that the
defendant had shown that he had a better title than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff's claim was
based on the Certificate of Occupancy as evidence of title.
"Indeed a certificate of occupancy properly issued under section 9 of the Land Use Act ought to
be a reflection and an assurance that the grantee has to be in occupation of the land. Where it is
shown by evidence that another person had a better right to grant, the court will have no
alternative but to set aside the grant, if asked to do so, or otherwise to ignore it." - per
NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC.

The issue of priority (see Inconsistent grant by the governor)

Alienation of Right of Occupancy

Ss. 21 & 22 prohibit alienation without the requisite consent sought. This applies both to deemed
and actual grants.

Savannah Bank v. Ajilo(1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.97) 305

The plaintiff/respondent mortgaged a land acquired before the LUA to the defendant/appellant in
order to secure a loan. The respondent defaulted in the repayment of the loan and the appellant
sought to exercise power of sale. The respondent challenged this, claiming that since he had not
obtained the governor's consent the transaction was void. The appellant contended that the
consent of the governor wasn't required, seeing that the respondent was a deemed grantee.

Held: All statutory rights of occupancy were covered by the consent provisions and that failure
to obtain the governor's consent rendered the mortgage void.

Comment: The respondent and not the appellant was at fault, for it was his duty to obtain the
governor's consent before mortgaging his property. But the court refused here to apply the settled
legal principle that a person cannot rely on his own illegality to dispute a transaction. However,
the case can clearly said to be authority for the proposition that the consent of the governor
is required both for actual and deemed grants.

Judicial opinion over the years seemed to be that a transferor whose duty it is to obtain the
consent of the governor but eschewed to do so, would not be allowed to use a statute as an
engine of fraud by subsequently pleading a lack of governor's consent.

Ugochukwu v. Cooperative and Commercial Bank (Nig) Ltd (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 524
/*The appellant, to secure a loan, mortgaged his property to the respondent. When after, some
years, the respondent discovered that the appellant had not been repaying his loan, it sought to
exercise its right under the mortgage. The appellant brought an action, claiming, inter alia, that
the mortgage was void. */

Held: The holder of a right of occupancy was the one to seek the consent and it would not be fair
of him if he turned around to claim that the transaction was void because such consent wasn't
obtained after having received valuable consideration.

But there seemed a departure from this principle in the more recent case of Union Bank v.
Ayodare

Union Bank v. Ayodare (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 567

The respondents mortgaged their property in order to obtain loan from the appellant. When they
defaulted in payment, the appellant sought to sell the land. The respondent thus brought an action,
claiming that the mortgage was null and void, seeing that the consent given was not given by the
appropriate parties.

Held: The court found for the respondent, holding that the consents had been invalidly obtained,
since they were not issued by the appropriate authority. It thus allowed the holder of a right of
occupancy, whose duty it was to obtain governor's consent, to rely on lack of consent so as to
avoid the transaction and thereby prevent the sale of the mortgaged property to re-coup the
mortgaged sum.
Whether the consent provision is transgressed by merely entering into an
agreement of alienation.

/*Confirm citation*\

Awojugbagbe Light Industries v. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 390) 379 SC.

The Supreme Court here rejected the claim of the appellant that the mortgaged deed was invalid
since the governor's consent came subsequent to it. It held that a holder of a statutory right of
occupancy is not prohibited by S. 22(1) from entering into some form of negotiations which
may end with a written agreement for presentation to the governor for his consent, so long
as the written agreement is entered into with the understanding that the governor's consent
must be obtained. The agreement remains inchoate and only comes to life when the governor
has consented to the alienation.

The said section only prohibits an action where the agreement itself is seen as a complete
alienation, without the holder of the right of occupancy having plans to go to the governor
for consent.

Revocation of Rights of Occupancy

Based on S. 28 of the Act, revocation of a right of occupancy may be on any of the following
grounds:

1. Overriding public interest

2. Public purpose by the Federal Government
3. Breach of terms and conditions

Any revocation for public purposes has to be within the public purposes set out in S. 51 of the
Act.

Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 157- The Supreme Court held
that any purpose not specified as public purpose for the purpose of revocation of right of
occupancy under S. 51 of the Act cannot be lawful purpose under the Act.
Procedure for Valid Revocation
S. 28(6) and (7) of the LUA (along with case law interpretations) contain the conditions for a
valid revocation:

1) Revocation must be by a person who has the power to revoke i.e. a public officer duly
authorized by the governor.

Majiyagbe v. Attorney General and ors (1957) NRNLR 158- for revocation to be effective, it
must be signed under the hand of the governor or by public officer a public officer duly
authorized in that behalf by the governor.

REF***: (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3702305)

2) Notice of shall be issues stating the purpose of the revocation

Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation

The court here upheld the claim of the plaintiff that the instrument of revocation was ultra vires,
mala fide, null and void because it did not state the specific purpose for which the land was
required. It held that it is implicit in S. 33 of the 1979 Constitution (now S. 36 under the 1999
Constitution, as amended), that full particulars of the ground of the revocation of a right of
occupancy should be given by the instrument of the revocation even if the enabling statute does
not expressly say so; that it is necessary for a notice of revocation to state specifically one of the
public purposes listed in S. 51 of the LUA and failure to do so is a breach of S. 33 of the 1979
Constitution and is thus unconstitutional.

Obikoya and Sons Ltd v. The Governor of Lagos State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 50) 385

The land in dispute belonged to the plaintiff and the fact that it was conveyed to him was not in
question. But the defendant claimed that prior to the conveyance of the land to the plaintiff, a
larger piece of the land of which the land in dispute forms a part was acquired by virtue of
a notice of acquisition in 1969 and that pursuant to this, the defendant had the title to the land
vested in it by a vesting order in 1976.

Whilst the originating summons of the plaintiff was pending in the High Court, the Lagos State
Commissioner for Economic and Physical Planning, acting on behalf of the governor, issued an
instrument of revocation and published it in the Gazette.

Held: The Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, held inter alia that under the LUA, the reason
for revocation of a right of occupancy must be stated even though the Act does not expressly
provide that the specific ground of the revocation must be stated in the notice; because to publish
a blanket notice of revocation of a man's right of occupancy will make it impossible for the
affected person to know when and on what grounds to object to the revocation, thus stifling his
exercise of right under S. 33 of the 1979 Constitution to make representations.

3) Notice shall be served on the holder

A notice can be said to have been duly served if it complies with S. 44 of the LUA. If it complies
not, then it is not good service.

Obikoya and Sons Ltd v. The Governor of Lagos State- Here the notice of revocation was
published in a gazette but was never served on the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal held that it
wasn't a good service, since it complied not with the relevant law.

4) Notice must be proved to have come to the knowledge of the holder.

AG Lagos v. Sowande (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 261) 589

Notice was served on the lessee of the respondents and not on the respondent. The court
dismissed the appeal of the appellants on the grounds that it was the respondent and not his
lessee that was entitled to receive the revocation notice. To the extent that it cannot be shown
that the respondent had notice of the revocation, the revocation was null and void.
Revocation Done in Other to Fulfil a Private Need
Even if a revocation is done properly and the land acquired, rather than being used for legitimate
purposes, is given to an individual or a group of persons, the court may still declare such
revocation to be void.

Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation

Land revoked from the plaintiff and given to another private person for his private business was
held to be void. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal which held that it
is an abuse of statutory authority to revoke a grant of a statutory right of occupancy from one
private company and grant it to another private company for the same purpose; an allocation of
the property of a private company to another private company cannot be either overriding
or public purpose.

The carrying out of public purpose need not be by the government itself. Thus, the revocation
cannot be said to be invalid if the right of occupancy was revoked for public purpose and was
subsequently granted to a private company to fulfil the said public purpose on behalf of the
government.

Lawson v. Ajibulu (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 195) 44

*The government here acquired an area of land which included the land of the
plaintiff/respondent and leased it to the 2nd appellant, a private company for the purpose of
turning it into a Housing Industrial and Economic Estate and for the general development of the
state*. The respondent thus brought an action claiming declaration of title to the disputed land
and damages for trespass and injunction.

Held: The Supreme Court, distinguishing the case from Ereku v. Governor of Mid Western
State (1974) 4 All NLR 695, held that the granting of land to a private company to carry on public
purpose was legitimate.
References
Ademu-Eteh, Manuel. THE BIU LAW STUDENT GUIDE . 25 November 2019.
https://biulsg.wordpress.com/2019/11/25/land-law-first-semester/. 21 October 2022.

Smith, I.O. Practical Approach to the Law of Real Property in Nigeria. Lagos: Ecowatch
Publications (Nigeria) Limited, 2013.

Tobi, Niki. Cases and Materials on Nigerian Land Land Law. Lagos: Mabrochi Bookas, 1992.
*- cross check