STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

LONG POSSESSION MUST BE ADVERSE FOR ACQUIESCENCE IN CUSTOMARY LAW

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I know that the inflexible principle of customary law is that no prescriptive title can be declared in favour of the respondent in spite of his long possession of the land in dispute. However, the courts are courts of both law and equity. In the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction in this matter the court acts on three principles. First, the right of the occupier must be adverse to those of the real owner. That has been proved in this case by the appellants. Not only must the possession be adverse, it must have lasted a long time. Thirdly, the real owner must have been guilty of acquiescence and/or laches to enable the occupier bring into play the defence of estoppel by conduct. In its simplest form, acquiescence means conduct from which it can be inferred that a person has agreed to a certain state of affairs affecting his legal rights. Acquiescence therefore operates by way of estoppel.

– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

unlawful possession

REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVICTION OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF INDIAN HEMP

It is the law that in order to secure a conviction for unlawful possession of Indian hemp, otherwise known as cannabis sativa, the prosecution must establish the following beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011: 1. That the substance was in the possession of the accused; That it was knowingly in his possession; 3. That the substance is proved to be Indian hemp (cannabis sativa); and 4. That the accused was in possession of the substance without lawful authority.

– A. Jauro JSC. Balogun v. FRN (2021)