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!

ACCEPTED METHODS OF PROVING CUSTOMARY OWNERSHIP

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

land

STATE LANDS ARE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES – SUCH LANDS ARE HELD IN TRUST

Their powers under the law are limited to leasing them to diverse persons, and accepting forfeitures and surrenders of leases. There appears to be substance in this contention. State lands in Nigeria invariably originate from compulsory acquisitions of such lands from individuals or communities for public purposes. Such lands are held in trust by the acquiring government for use for the public purpose for which the land was acquired and in accordance with the public policy of the state as enshrined in the laws of the state.

– Nnaemeka-agu, JSC. Ude v. Nwara (1993)

Was this dictum helpful?

OWNER OF LAND UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW REQUIRES CONSENT OF GOVERNOR TO ALIENATE

Land is still held under customary tenure even though dominium is in the Governor. The most pervasive effect of the Land use Act is the diminution of the plenitude of the powers of the holders of land. The character in which they hold remain substantially the same. Thus an owner at customary law remains owners all the same even though he no longer is the ultimate owner. The owner of land, now requires the consent of the Governor to alienate interests which hitherto he could do without such consent.

— Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Ogunola v. Eiyekole (1990) – SC.195/1987

Was this dictum helpful?

NAME OR ETYMOLOGY OF THE LAND IS NOT INDICATIVE OF OWNERSHIP

The trial court found in favour of the respondents but that finding is neither here nor there, because the name or etymology of the name of a piece of land is not necessarily indicative of the ownership thereof. In the case of Alhaji Aromire and 2 ors v. J.S. Awoyemi (1972) 1 A.N.L.R (Pt. 1) 101 at 113, this Court, per Coker J.S.C., held that no reliance can be placed on the differences in the names ascribed to the same portion of land in the vicinity. The difference in names will be immaterial if the identity of the land in dispute is otherwise not in dispute. In the same vein, the Court of Appeal, per Nnaemeka-Agu J.C.A., as he then was, in the case of Onwumere v. Agwunedu (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 62) 673 expressed the following opinion – “Now it has been decided by a long line of decided casesboth by this Court and the Supreme Court that when parties base their claims to land upon evidence of tradition and the evidence of tradition called by both sides to the suit is in conflict, the best way to decide which of the conflicting stories is the more probable is to test them from the background of facts within living memory. See on this Agedegudu v. Ajenifuja (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 109 at p. 115 to 117; Ogboide Aikhionbare and ors v. Omoregie and ors (1976) 12 SC 11. It is not a matter, which can be resolved on the credibility of witnesses or as the learned Judge has done by mere etymological approach when the names themselves and the ownership of the surrounding lands and some of the features on the land in dispute are parts of the conflict …”

— Edozie JSC. Cosm As Ezukwu v. Peter Ukachukwu Jude Ukachukwu (SC. 160/2000, 2 July 2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

ONUS ON CLAIMANT TO ESTABLISH PRECISE BOUNDARY OF LAND

The Plaintiffs/Appellants in this case claimed a declaration, damages for trespass and an injunction. Such a claim should be tied on to a definite and specific area of land so that any enuring judgment for the plaintiffs may inform the defendants what the opinion of the court is as to the limits of their rights and not expose them in the exercise of such rights to the consequences of violating an injunction based on a plan like Ex. A which not containing precise boundaries leaves the land in dispute vague and imprecise. It is not for the Defendant/Respondent to find out what portions of Ex.A belongs to the Plaintiffs/Appellants and what portions do not. That is the first hurdle a claimant to land will clear i.e. to establish the precise area he is claiming.

– Oputa JSC. OLUFOSOYE v. OLORUNFEMI (1989)

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION BETWEEN A HOLDER & OCCUPIER IN LAND LAW

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

Was this dictum helpful?

PROOF NOT NECESSARY WHERE IDENTITY OF LAND NOT IN DISPUTE

It is the general principle of law that a plaintiff who claims title to land must prove the identity of the land in dispute. This is to enable the court know the exact area or acreage of the land in dispute to give him judgment if he is able to prove title. However, where the identity of the land is not in dispute or where there is enough evidence for the court to infer the identity of the land, proof is not necessary. In such a situation, the plaintiff has no burden to prove the identity of the land. Of the two ways, the easier one is when the parties agree as to the identity of the land or they do not put the identity of the land in issue.

– Niki Tobi JSC. Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.