In a case where the landlord does not know the names of the illegal occupiers of his land or cannot even physically identify all of them, the requirement that the persons be made defendants to the action would result in great injustice and hardship to the landlord or land owner thus giving rise to the procedure under Order 50 – Nnodi v. Thanks Investment Ltd (2005) 11 NWLR (pt 935) 29.
– Abiru, JCA. Okoli v. Gaya (2014)
SHARE ON
Compensation under sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act would be as respects:- (a) the land for an amount equal to the rent if any paid by the occupier during the year in which the right of occupancy was revoked, i.e. 1979; (b) buildings, installation or improvements thereon for the amount of the replacement cost of the building, installation or improvement, that is to say, such cost as may be assessed on the basis of the prescribed method of assessment as determined by the appropriate officer less any depreciation together with interest at the bank rate of delayed payment of compensation and in respect of any improvement in the nature of reclamation works being such cost thereof as may be substantiated by documentary evidence and proof to the satisfaction of the appropriate officer; (c) crops on land apart from any building, installation or improvement thereon, for an amount equal to the value as prescribed and determined by the appropriate officer.
— Obaseki, JSC. Foreign Finance Corp. v Lagos State Devt. & Pty. Corp. & Ors. (1991) – SC. 9/1988
It is well settled that one of the five ways of establishing a claim for declaration of title to land is by traditional evidence. See Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC, 227. It is also settled that once the traditional evidence is found to be conclusive and cogent, there would be no need whatsoever to require further proof. See Akinyili v. Ejidike (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 449) 181 at 417; Balogun v. Akanji (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 301; Amajideogu v. Ononaku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 614. But the traditional evidence must be such as to be consistent and properly link the plaintiff with the traditional history relied upon. See Owoade v. Omitola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 413. Also a plaintiff who seeks declaration of title to land must prove his root of title to the land. If he traces his title to a particular person, it is not enough to stop there. He must go further to prove how that person got his own title or came to have the title vested in him including where necessary the family that originally owned the land. See Thomas v. Preston Holder 12 WACA 78; Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 476) 22.
— U.A. Kalgo, JSC. Dike & Ors. V. Francis Okoloedo & Ors. (SC.116/1993, 15 Jul 1999)
Under Native law and custom the requirements for a valid sale are:- (a) Payment of purchase price (b) Purchaser is let into possession by the vendor (c) In the presence of witnesses. It is not necessary to have a written contract or conveyance as under English law. Adesanya V. Aderounmu (2000) 6 SC pt.2, pg, 18, Elema V. Akeuzua (2000) 6 SC pt, 3, pg. 26.
— O.O. Adekeye, JSC. Agboola v UBA (2011) – SC.86/2003
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 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
The essential distinction which could be made between a “holder” and an “Occupier” as defined, is that whereas the former is a person entitled in law to a right of occupancy, the latter is not a person so entitled. The legal effect of the distinction is that an “occupier” will necessarily hold of a “holder” who would at the commencement of the Land Use Act be entitled to a customary right of occupancy. Hence, the fact that the “occupier” is in possession, and the “holder” is not, does not alter the true legal status of the parties.
– Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) – SC.169/1987
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry