Generally, a contract may be oral i.e., (by parol) or in writing. There are however some contracts which the law mandatorily imposes a written requirement for the enforceability of such contracts. One of such contracts is a contract for the sale of land.
– Amaizu, J.C.A. Adeniran v. Olagunju (2001)
SHARE ON
In law therefore, a valid sale of land is constituted where there is payment of money as consideration, acknowledgment of receipt of the purchase money and execution of deed of conveyance in favour of the purchaser by the Vendor. See Erinosho v. Owokoniran (1965) NMLR 479. See also Ogunbanbi v Abowab (1951) 13 WACA 222; Onafowokan V Oshopitan (2009) 1 WRN 142 @p. 166
— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Anyi & Ors. v. Akande & Ors. (2017) – CA/L/334/2014
The Plaintiffs/Appellants in this case claimed a declaration, damages for trespass and an injunction. Such a claim should be tied on to a definite and specific area of land so that any enuring judgment for the plaintiffs may inform the defendants what the opinion of the court is as to the limits of their rights and not expose them in the exercise of such rights to the consequences of violating an injunction based on a plan like Ex. A which not containing precise boundaries leaves the land in dispute vague and imprecise. It is not for the Defendant/Respondent to find out what portions of Ex.A belongs to the Plaintiffs/Appellants and what portions do not. That is the first hurdle a claimant to land will clear i.e. to establish the precise area he is claiming.
– Oputa JSC. OLUFOSOYE v. OLORUNFEMI (1989)
In Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223 it was held that- “Where there is a conflict of traditional history which had been handed down by words of mouth one side or the other must be mistaken, yet both may be honest in their belief. In such a case, the demeanour of witnesses is of little guide to the truth. The best way is to test the traditional history by reference to facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of the two competing histories is more probable.”
The trial court found in favour of the respondents but that finding is neither here nor there, because the name or etymology of the name of a piece of land is not necessarily indicative of the ownership thereof. In the case of Alhaji Aromire and 2 ors v. J.S. Awoyemi (1972) 1 A.N.L.R (Pt. 1) 101 at 113, this Court, per Coker J.S.C., held that no reliance can be placed on the differences in the names ascribed to the same portion of land in the vicinity. The difference in names will be immaterial if the identity of the land in dispute is otherwise not in dispute. In the same vein, the Court of Appeal, per Nnaemeka-Agu J.C.A., as he then was, in the case of Onwumere v. Agwunedu (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 62) 673 expressed the following opinion – “Now it has been decided by a long line of decided casesboth by this Court and the Supreme Court that when parties base their claims to land upon evidence of tradition and the evidence of tradition called by both sides to the suit is in conflict, the best way to decide which of the conflicting stories is the more probable is to test them from the background of facts within living memory. See on this Agedegudu v. Ajenifuja (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 109 at p. 115 to 117; Ogboide Aikhionbare and ors v. Omoregie and ors (1976) 12 SC 11. It is not a matter, which can be resolved on the credibility of witnesses or as the learned Judge has done by mere etymological approach when the names themselves and the ownership of the surrounding lands and some of the features on the land in dispute are parts of the conflict …”
— Edozie JSC. Cosm As Ezukwu v. Peter Ukachukwu Jude Ukachukwu (SC. 160/2000, 2 July 2004)
It is my firm view therefore that the words “ANY PERSON” under section 36(1) of the Act refer to and mean ANY NIGERIAN. The Act has not abrogated any law which limits the rights of aliens to own property. I will however share the views of Omololu-Thomas, J.C.A. that any foreigner who has validly owned or occupied any land before the act is deemed to be an occupier under the act. This however must be in conformity with the definition of occupier under section 50 of the Land Use Act.
— Olatawura, JSC. Ogunola v. Eiyekole (1990) – SC.195/1987
It is a misconception to regard damage for crops growing on land as not belonging to a claim for trespass to land. Quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit.
– Obaseki, JSC. Ekpan v. Agunu (1986)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry