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

FIVE DISTINCT WAYS IN WHICH OWNERSHIP OF LAND MAY BE PROVED

The law recognises five distinct ways in which title to or ownership of land in Nigeria could be proved as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227. These are:- By traditional evidence. (b) By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed. By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership. By acts of long possession and enjoyment; and , (e) proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.

— Onnoghen JSC. Aigbobahi & Ors. v. Aifuwa, Osabuohien & Ors. (SC. 194/2001, 3 Feb 2006)

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)

WHEN TWO COMPETING HISTORIES ARE CONTRADICTORY IN LAND MATTERS

In Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223 it was held that- “Where there is a conflict of traditional history which had been handed down by words of mouth one side or the other must be mistaken, yet both may be honest in their belief. In such a case, the demeanour of witnesses is of little guide to the truth. The best way is to test the traditional history by reference to facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of the two competing histories is more probable.”

LAND USE FOR MARKET DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN IT IS A COMMUNAL LAND

The fact that land is used as a market does not necessarily mean that it is communal land. A market is no doubt a public place which may be an open space or a building where people go to buy and sell goods. But it does not follow from the fact that it is a public place that the market belongs to the community and not to an individual or a group of individuals. Even if the market is communally owned evidence as to the community which owns it must be forthcoming before one can come to the conclusion that it belongs to that community.

— Agbaje, JSC. Ogunleye v Oni (1990) – S.C. 193/1987

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