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!

NOTICE OF POSSESSION OF LAND – ACTS DONE ON LAND

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

In Mogaji and Ors v. Cadbury Fry (Export) Ltd. (supra) at p. 88, Madarikan, JSC, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court said: “Possession of a parcel of land means the occupation or physical control of the land either personally or through an agent. As stated by Lord Fitzgerald in Lord Advocate v. Young (1887) 12 App. Cas. 544 at p. 556, by possession is meant possession of that character of which the thing possessed is capable. Thus, if a person adduced evidence that he or his agent or servant were cultivating a farmland that would be evidence sufficient to establish that he was in possession of the land. Similarly, if a person erects on a parcel of land a signboard bearing his name, he hereby gives notice to all and sundry that he is in possession of the land.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

land

PARTY MUST SHOW PLAN CORRESPONDS WITH THE LAND

It settled law that where a party claims ownership of a parcel of land and relies on a plan, he must show that his plan corresponds with the land to which he lays claim. It is usually not enough for a party simply to file or tender a plan of land and rest content that...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

MEANING OF “ANY PERSON” AS USED IN SECTION 36(1) OF LAND USE ACT MEANS ANY NIGERIAN

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...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

LAND: WHERE DEFENDANTS ARE UNKNOWN

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...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

ALL LANDS VESTED IN MILITARY GOVERNOR

The control and management of all land in the state, apart from the land vested in the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, is therefore vested either in the Military Governor or the Local Government and while the Military Governor has power to grant statutory right of occupancy in respect of any land [see section...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

RENT INCLUDE THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON THE PREMISES

✓ Ponsford v. H.M.S. Aerosols (supra). Here there was lease dated August 19, 1968 of factory premises in Barking for 21 years and the revision of rent was to be referred to a surveyor under an arbitration clause where the parties disagree on the revised rent. In 1969, the premises were burnt down and rebuilt out of the proceeds of insurance. The licence for the improvements which were in fact made was contained in a document dated November 14, 1969, where in clause 1 it provided: “The landlords hereby grant unto the tenants licence to execute in and upon the demised premises the several alterations and works indicated in the plan annexed …. It is hereby agreed and declared that all the lessee’s covenants and conditions contained in the lease which are now applicable to the premises demised thereby shall continue to be applicable to the same when and as altered and shall extend to all additions which may be made thereto in the course of such alterations.” The lease of August 19, 1968 indicated, inter alia, that the rent would be assessed “as reasonable rent for the demised premises”. The trial judge. held that a reasonable rent for the premises should be assessed without taking account of the improvements made by the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed on the ground that the judge was wrong in his construction of the rent review clause. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, by a majority of 2:1, reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the revised rent would include the improvements made on the demised premises.

✓ Cuff v. J. & F. Stone Proper Ltd. (supra) provided that improvement on the land should not be wholly disregarded. Cuffs case is different from the case before us in the sense that the improvements on the land had been made prior to the execution of the lease. Accordingly the improvement, unless expressly excluded, must be taken into account in computing the revised rent. In the instant case there was not improvement on the bare land at the time of the lease, and the subsequent improvement did not form part of the demised premises. Without doubt, the improvements in the Cuff case formed part of the demised premises.

Was this dictum helpful?

PURCHASER’S INABILITY TO FULFILL PART PAYMENT WILL NULLIFY THE LAND CONTRACT

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’.

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.