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 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.”
I think it is an elementary requirement of our land law that the first duty of any plaintiff claiming from the court a declaration of title to land is to show clearly the area of land to which his claim relates:- Akinola Baruwa v. Ogunshola (1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 195. This duty a plaintiff can discharge, either by describing the land with such particularity that a surveyor can from his description produce an accurate plan of the land:- Kwadzo v. Adjei (1944) 10 W.A.C.A. 274 or, by himself producing an accurate plan of the land showing precise boundaries. If the plan is inaccurate in the sense that the boundaries are imprecise or that the oral evidence does not tally with the details appearing on the plan, then the trial court will be justified in regarding such a plan as vague and unsatisfactory and again justified in refusing to find a declaration of title on such a plan: Udekwe Amata v. Udogu Modekwe and Ors. (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 580. The reason for insisting on accurate plans is simply to enable the parties and other persons claiming through them to know precisely the area of land to which the judgment and orders relate:- Maberi v. Alade (1987) 2 N.W.L.R. (Part 55) 101 at p.106. Enforcement of a judgment and order of injunction based on an inaccurate plan will create difficulties, untold difficulties. Where parties own land abutting a common boundary that common boundary will be shown with particularity and precision: Okorie and Ors. v. Udom and Ors. (1960) 5 F.S.C. 162 at p.166; Udofia & anor. v. Afia and ors. Andy v. Akpabio and ors. (1940) 6 W.A.C.A. 216. Another feature of our land law which has to be kept in view while considering Issue No. 1 above is that where a party claims a specific area of land and can only prove title to a part of that area of land or where the defendant concedes part of the land claimed, the court can grant the plaintiff title to the area proved or conceded but if; and only if, that area is definite and can be easily hatched out of and excised from the total area claimed, see Abudu Karimu v. Daniel Fajube (1968) N.M.L.R. 151 and Anukwua and ors. v. Ohia and ors. (1986) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 40) 150 at p.161. Otherwise the declaration may be rightly refused.
– Oputa JSC. OLUFOSOYE v. OLORUNFEMI (1989)
The accepted methods of proving customary ownership of land are- (1) Traditional History of ownership; (2) Where the evidence in (1) above is found to be inconclusive, then proof of acts of occupation and use of the land over a considerable long period without challenge or disturbance from any other claimant and (3) Where (2) above fails, proof of exclusive possession without permission. See – Ekpo v. Ita 11 N.L.R. 68; F.M. Alade v. Lawrence Awo (1975) 4 S.C.215.
— Wali JSC. Onwuka & Ors. V. Ediala & Anor. (SC.18/1987, 20 January 1989)
It is common ground that the land in dispute over which Exhibit B was issued in favour of the plaintiff is within the urban area of Ibadan. It is not in dispute that it is developed land within the provisions of section 5(1) of the of the Land Use Act 1978. Accordingly, pursuant to section 34(2) of the Land Use Act, the land in dispute shall continue to be held by the person in whom it was vested immediately before the commencement of the Land Use Act on the 29th March, 1978 as if such person was the holder of a statutory right of occupancy issued to him by the Governor under the Act.
— Iguh, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995
Mustapha v. Abubakar (2026) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2043) 541 at 568 — 569, D — A: ‘In the case of Florence Achonu v. Oladipo Okuwobi (2017)LPELR-42102(SC), (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt.1584) 142 this court addressed the critical issue of the purchaser’s inability to fulfil payment obligations. The court emphasized the legal implications of such a failure, exploring the responsibilities of both the buyer and the seller within the context of the transaction. The court underscored the importance of timely payment under contractual agreements and outlined the consequences that arise when a purchaser fails to meet his financial commitments as stipulated in the contract. “The law is settled that where a purchaser of land makes part payment of the purchase price, but defaults in paying the balance, there can be no valid sale even where the purchaser is in possession. Such possession is incapable of defeating the vendor’s title. See Odusoga v. Ricketts (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 1.In the instant case, the purchaser, that is the appellant had failed to pay the balance of the purchase price at the expiration of the one week agreed upon by her and after extension of time and repeated demands for payment by the respondent. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were therefore justified when they quashed the trial court’s order for specific performance. This issue is accordingly resolved against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.” The law is fairly settled that a purchaser cannot make part payment and refuse to complete payment as agreed, so doing will amount to repudiation of the agreement and the vendor will be at liberty to claim damages for breach of contract, parties are bound by their agreement. Again, where the purchaser acts in breach of his agreement with the vendor, he cannot ask for specific performance’.
It was not the aim of the Land Use Act to convert a tenant into an owner merely by the fact that such tenant was in occupation of his landlord’s land before the inception of the Act.
— Oputa JSC. Onwuka & Ors. V. Ediala & Anor. (SC.18/1987, 20 January 1989)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry