In the first place family land ceases to be such land on partition, – See Balogun v. Balogun (1943) 9 WACA 78. Thus if the Aige family, as in the instant case partitioned its land and granted any portion to any branch of the family, the grant so made ceases to be Aige family land, but is now the land of the person or persons to whom the grant has been granted.
— A.G. Karibi-Whyte, JSC. Olowosago V. Adebanjo (SC.134/86, 29 Sep 1988)
SHARE ON
The law is that family land can only be sold by the family head or Mogaji with the concurrence of principal members of the family.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)
In Ollennu, J. in Boafo v. Staudt (1958) “By native custom, where one member of the family acquires land for himself with his own money as his individual property and other members of the family develop that land with their own money or labour by building on it or farming it, the property immediately acquires the character of family property and ceases to be the individual or exclusive property of the member who purchased the land with his own money. Because the land in its developed state is the result of the combined contribution of members of the family it cannot in its entirety be the product or achievement of any single one of the members of the family who contributed to make it what it is. The purchaser and each of those who developed it have life interests in it. The purchaser of the land can together with all who developed it dispose of the whole estate in it without reference to the head and other members of the family. But upon the death of the member who bought the land or upon the death of any one of the members who developed it, the property becomes full family property with all the incidents of family property.”
The law is also that where there is alienation of family land by sale as in this case the family head and principal members must concur therein. The transaction is void where these persons are not involved. These persons must act in a representative rather than personal capacity. Let us assume that the 3rd plaintiff and some family members concurred in the original sale to the respondent while expressing themselves to be acting on behalf of the family, the sale is valid but voidable at the instance of members of the family whose consent was necessary but not obtained.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)
If the appellant is entitled to exercise the usual powers of the Chief or family head in the management of the family property, he is also entitled to the relief he asks for, since it is not pretended that the settlement enables the respondents, or the family council less the Chief, to dispose of the family property without the consent of the Chief. If, on the other hand, the appellant is not entitled to exercise any powers of management over the family property then he cannot obtain any relief, whatever the effect of the settlement may be. If this view is correct, the only question which the Court has to decide is whether the appellant has the usual powers of the Chief or family head.
– Brett F.J. Ajibola v. Ojora (1961)
Having found that the plaintiffs failed to prove either ownership or exclusive possession which they pleaded the court below ought to have held that they d id not prove their case and should have dismissed it. The onus of proof was on the plaintiffs. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that it has been established by a long line of decided cases that one of the incidents of our traditional communal ownership of land is that once it is admitted that a particular piece of land belongs to a family, the law places a rather heavy burden of proof on any person or group which asserts exclusivity of ownership or possession against the family or any person claiming through them. Mere evidence of occupation and user by a member of the family is not conclusive as against the family or a person who claims through the family.
— Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Adesanya v Otuewu (1993) – SC.217/1989
Appellants had relied on their customs, to say that only biological sons of a family can inherit their fathers landed property. Of course, such old and oppressive laws in Igbo land have since been reviewed by case law, pursuant to Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
– Mbaba JCA. Aduba v. Aduba (2018)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry