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!

DAMAGE TO CROP GROWING ON LAND

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

It is a misconception to regard damage for crops growing on land as not belonging to a claim for trespass to land. Quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit.

– Obaseki, JSC. Ekpan v. Agunu (1986)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

land

REQUIREMENT FOR VALID SALE OF LAND UNDER NATIVE LAW & CUSTOM

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

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN IDENTITY OF LAND BECOMES AN ISSUE IN LAND MATTERS

It is also now settled law that requires no citation of any authority, that the identity of land in a land dispute will only be in issue if and only if the defendant in his statement of defence makes it one. If he disputes specifically either the area or the location or the features shown in the plaintiff’s plan, then the identity of the land becomes an issue to be tried. In my view both the trial court and the Court of Appeal were right in their decision that the identity of the land in dispute was not an issue joined in the pleadings to be tried.

– Musdapher JSC. Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007)

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?

NOTICE OF POSSESSION OF LAND – ACTS DONE ON LAND

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?

REVOLUTIONARY EFFECT OF THE LAND USE ACT

Since the promulgation of the Act by the Military Administration of General Obasanjo in 1978, the vast majority of Nigerians have been unaware of its revolutionary effect. They have been unaware that the Act swept away all the unlimited rights and interest they had in their lands and substituted them with very limited rights and rigid control of the use of their limited rights by the Military Governors and Local Governments. This appeal is probably one of the earliest of contested matters that will bring the revolutionary effect of the Act to the deep and painful awareness of many. The experience of disbelief and the ultra sensitivity to the irritating thoughts of loss of freedom to use one’s property without exploitative government control exhibited by the appellants’ counsel notwithstanding the fact remains that we must all appreciate the true legal position and bring it to the knowledge of the beneficiaries of rights and interest in land in each State of the Nigerian Federation. This will enable the steps necessary to bring the law in line with the wishes of Nigerians to be taken. Section 1 of the Act has made no secret of the intention and purpose of the law. It declared that land in each state of the Federation shall be vested in the Military Governor of each state to be held in trust for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians.

– Obaseki, JSC. Savannah v. Ajilo (1989)

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.