Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

FAMILY HEAD & PRINCIPAL MEMBERS MUST CONCUR FOR SALE OF FAMILY LAND

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

The law is also that where there is alienation of family land by sale as in this case the family head and principal members must concur therein. The transaction is void where these persons are not involved. These persons must act in a representative rather than personal capacity. Let us assume that the 3rd plaintiff and some family members concurred in the original sale to the respondent while expressing themselves to be acting on behalf of the family, the sale is valid but voidable at the instance of members of the family whose consent was necessary but not obtained.

– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

HOW FAMILY LAND CAN BE CREATED

The concept of family property is original to our indigenous society, and is the bedrock of our law of inheritance. It is regarded correctly as the corner stone of our Indigenous land law. Judicial decisions are replete in the circumstances of the creation of family property. The most common circumstance is death intestate of a land owner, whose estate is governed by customary law. Such land devolves to his heirs in perpetuity as family land – See Lewis v. Bankole (1908) 1 N.L.R. 89; Family land can be created by a conveyance inter vivos, where land is purchased with money belonging to the family – See Nelson v. Nelson (1913) 13 N.L.R. 248. Family land can be created by the use of the appropriate expression in the will of the owner of such land. – See Re Edward Forster (1938) N.LR. 83 George v. Fajore (1939) 15 N.L.R. 1 Shaw v. Kehinde (1947) 18 N.LR. 129. For the lain in dispute to qualify as family land, it will be necessary to identify not only its origin, but its status.

— Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Adebanjo v Olowosoga (1988) – SC 134/1986

Was this dictum helpful?

FAMILY LAND CEASES TO BE FAMILY LAND ON PARTITION

In the first place family land ceases to be such land on partition, – See Balogun v. Balogun. (1943) 9 W.A.C.A. 78. Thus the Aige family, as in the instant case partitioned its land and granted any portion to any branch of the family, the grant so made ceases to be Aige family land, but is now the land of the person or persons to whom the grant has been made.

— Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Adebanjo v Olowosoga (1988) – SC 134/1986

Was this dictum helpful?

ONLY SONS INHERITING PROPERTY IS REPUGNANT

Appellants had relied on their customs, to say that only biological sons of a family can inherit their fathers landed property. Of course, such old and oppressive laws in Igbo land have since been reviewed by case law, pursuant to Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

– Mbaba JCA. Aduba v. Aduba (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

MANAGEMENT BY THE WHITE CAP CHIEF

If the appellant is entitled to exercise the usual powers of the Chief or family head in the management of the family property, he is also entitled to the relief he asks for, since it is not pretended that the settlement enables the respondents, or the family council less the Chief, to dispose of the family property without the consent of the Chief. If, on the other hand, the appellant is not entitled to exercise any powers of management over the family property then he cannot obtain any relief, whatever the effect of the settlement may be. If this view is correct, the only question which the Court has to decide is whether the appellant has the usual powers of the Chief or family head.

– Brett F.J. Ajibola v. Ojora (1961)

Was this dictum helpful?

PROPER SALE OF FAMILY LAND

The law is that family land can only be sold by the family head or Mogaji with the concurrence of principal members of the family.

– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

MEMBER OF FAMILY CAN BRING ACTION TO PROTECT FAMILY PROPERTY

It is no doubt correct to say that a member of the family is competent to bring action to protect the interest of the family in respect of family property; even if he has no authority of the family to bring the action, – See Sogunle and Ors. v. Akerele and Ors. (1967) NMLR 58, at p. 60. This principle however applies to family land. Since the land in dispute in this case is not family property, the principle laid down in Sogunle and Ors. v. Akerele and Ors. is not applicable.

— A.G. Karibi-Whyte, JSC. Olowosago V. Adebanjo (SC.134/86, 29 Sep 1988)

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 1755 | UO – 1 | GO – 1359 | BO – 395

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.