Why must the seven landlords who were the plaintiffs in the case need the occupation of the single ground floor flat before they can recover possession of the flat. If that is the law, it is a law devoid of human face, human reason and common sense. I shall not project such a law.
– Ubaezonu JCA. Coker v. Adetayo (1992)
SHARE ON
A customary tenant is a tenant from year to year liable under Customary Law to pay rents or tribute to the landlord for the use of the land and barred from alienating the land or disputing the title of the landlord without consent. He cannot be in possession if his landlord is out of possession as the possession he enjoys is that given by the landlord. The landlord is the
holder under the Land Use Act and the tenant does not come within the definition of holder. Where there is a holder, the tenant although an occupier, is not entitled to a customary right of occupancy.
– Obaseki, JSC. Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) – SC.169/1987
In a plaintiff’s pleading, he is required to show clearly and prove the nature of the possession which he is relying upon to sustain his action in trespass, that is whether he is relying on bare possession or on his possession or right to possession based on his title to the land. The rule of audi alteram partem, which is incorporated in our rules of pleadings postulates that a man must know the nature of the case which he is to meet in court. This is also a clear implication of the constitutional provision of fair hearing guaranteed by section 33 of our Constitution of 1979. As such is the case, a plaintiff cannot in his pleadings aver exclusive possession or right to possession based on title but, having failed to prove it, be allowed to succeed on bare possession.
— Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Adesanya v Otuewu (1993) – SC.217/1989
Cases of tenancy at will are common where a tenant for a fixed term holds over the property with consent of the landlord while negotiations for further lease are going on. The general rule is that if a tenant pays rent during this period, he becomes a periodic tenant, e.g. if he pays a year’s rent, then he is a yearly tenant.
– AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JCA. Bocas v. Wemabod (2016)
A very important factor is that the grantor of the land, once it has been given to the grantees as customary tenants, cannot thereafter grant it or any part of it to a third party without the consent or approval of the customary tenants. The grantor is not allowed to derogate from his grant.
– T.O. Elias, CJN. Aghenghen v. Waghoreghor (1974)
Errington v. Errington and Anor. (1952) 1 All E.R. 149. At page 154 line D. Denning, L.J. stated that:- “The difference between a tenancy and a licence is, therefore, that in a tenancy an interest passes in the land, whereas in a licence it does not. In distinguishing between them, a crucial test has sometimes been supposed to be whether the occupier has exclusive possession or not. If he was let into exclusive possession, he was said be a tenant, albeit only a tenant at will: See Doe D. Tomes v. Chamberlain (4), Lynes v. Snaith (2); whereas if he had not exclusive possession he was only a licensee; Peakin v. Peakin (5) This test has, however, often given rise to misgivings because it may not correspond to realities.” And at p. 155 Denning went further to state:- “The result of all these cases is that, although a person who is let into exclusive possession is, prima facie, to be considered to be a tenant, nevertheless he will not be held to be so if the circumstances negative any intention to create a tenancy. Words alone may not suffice. Parties cannot turn a tenancy into a licence merely by calling it one. But if the circumstances and the conduct of the parties show that all that was intended was that the occupier should be granted a personal privilege with no interest in the land, he will be held only to be a licensee.”
I agree that where two persons claim possession at the same time that is the correct proposition of law as there is nothing like concurrent possession of land by two persons. If the party who has a better title has divested himself of possession in favour of a third party he has no possession which can be disturbed by mere entry and which will entitle him to sue for damages for trespass.
– Obaseki, JSC. Ekpan v. Agunu (1986)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry