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!

REVERSIONARY INTEREST CANNOT BE SOLD WHEN ANOTHER IS IN POSSESSION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

It appears to me to be the law that a reversioner, such as the 2nd respondent, cannot sell his reversionary interest, that is his particular estate, as fee simple while another person is in possession of the land. He must first either first recover possession from that other person in possession or sell his reversionary interest subject to that person’s possession. For what the reversioner has in such a case is the freehold reversion subject to the possession in another person and not a fee simple absolute free from incumberances. It must be noted that interests in land, whether legal or equitable, are carved out as it were on a plane of time. Any holder of a particular interest or estate who attempts to sell more than the quantum of his estate will be caught by the maxim: nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give or sell what he has not).

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

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

interest, possession

PARTY WITHHELD MONEY DUE, INTEREST WILL FLOW

It is also trite in law that when in a business transaction like the one under discourse a party is found to have withheld money due to the other party for sometime after being due, it is a natural consequence that flows from the default that interest be paid for the period of default until liquidation. I rely on ACME Builders Ltd v Kaduna State Water Board (1999} 2 SC 1 at 9.

— M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Cappa v NDIC (2021) – SC.147/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS LAND

Firstly, the submission that the Nigeria Police Force is an integral part of ‘the Federal Executive’ with no capacity to own or possess land independently of the Federal Government is unnecessary. But more importantly, the assumption ignores the fact that the Nigeria Police Force is a creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in much the same way as other organs of the Federal Government, such as the legislature, executive the judiciary and the armed forces of the federation, each of which, though an arm of the Government of the Federation, nonetheless, has an independent capacity and rights that do not depend on the executive arm, including the right to possess land. See sections 4 and 43; 5 and 122; 6 and part I of chapter VII; sections 194 and 197 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.

– Olagunju JCA. Ofodile v. COP (2000)

Was this dictum helpful?

SEVEN LANDLORDS MUST NOT NEED OCCUPATION

Why must the seven landlords who were the plaintiffs in the case need the occupation of the single ground floor flat before they can recover possession of the flat. If that is the law, it is a law devoid of human face, human reason and common sense. I shall not project such a law.

– Ubaezonu JCA. Coker v. Adetayo (1992)

Was this dictum helpful?

SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL NOTICE ON INTEREST RATE

The matter is not made easy by their claiming that they agreed on the interest rate of 13% when there was no such clause in the deed of legal mortgage and when it is a well-known fact which this court takes judicial notice of that interest rates are dependent of the policy on the Central Bank. No interest rate is static. It is not immutable. It varies depending on the nature of Government policy which follows the state of the economy.

– Pats-Acholonu, J.S.C. Pinder v. North (2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF PRE-JUDGEMENT INTEREST

The law on pre-judgment interest is that it is to be awarded where there is an agreement for payment of interest or under mercantile custom or under principle of equity, as in breach of fiduciary duty. In all such cases the law is that pre-judgment interest is as of right. The Appellant is no doubt a licensed Commercial Bank and thus bound by its trade custom to give interest on money lodged with it. The law requires a person claiming such right to pre-judgment interest to so plead and prove at the trial. In law generally the Courts have the power to award post-judgment interest but not pre-judgment interest since pre-judgment interest which must be based on pleadings and proof by the party so claiming entitlement to it save if it is part of the mercantile custom of the transaction involving the parties. In all therefore, it is never granted as of course, but must either be part of the contemplation of the parties by virtue of their contract terms or mercantile custom of fiduciary duty or it is specifically pleaded and proved. In Ferrero and Company Ltd. v. Henkel Chemicals Nigeria Ltd. (2011) LPELR 12 (SC). His Lordship, Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was, now CJN) had expatiated on the rationale behind this principle of law inter alia thus: It follows that before a party can claim pre-judgment interest, he has to plead not only his entitlement to the interest but the basis of the entitlement either by Statute or contract/agreement between the parties, or mercantile custom or principle of equity, such as breach of fiduciary relationship. It is not for the Court to speculate or conjecture or assume the facts relevant to the claim. The relevant facts must be pleaded, as fact not pleaded goes to no issue. In addition to the requirement of pleading the relevant facts, the Plaintiff must adduce evidence at the trial in proof of the relevant facts. Where there is no evidence in proof of the facts, then the pleadings are deemed abandoned. See also UBA Plc. v. Oranuba (2013) LPELR- 20692 (CA). See also Hausa v. FBN Plc (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 671) 64; Ekwunife v. Wayne W/A Ltd (1989) NWLR (Pt. 122) 422: Hinma Merchant Ltd v. Alhaji Inuwa Aliyu (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 667 @ pp. 676-677; Stabilini Visinoni Ltd v. Metalum Ltd. (2007) LPELR-8661 (CA) UBN Ltd v. Salami (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 538) 347: Idakula v. Richards (2000) FWLR (Pt. 14) 2439; Jallco Ltd. v. Owoniboys Tech Serv. Ltd. (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 391) 534 @ p. 550; Petgas Resources Ltd. v. Louts N. Mbanefo (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 545 @ p. 549; Consolidated Resources Limited v. Abofar Ventures Nigeria Limited (2007) 6 NWLR (pt. 1030) 225.

— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE LAND TITLE HOLDER DIVEST HIMSELF OF POSSESSION

I agree that where two persons claim possession at the same time that is the correct proposition of law as there is nothing like concurrent possession of land by two persons. If the party who has a better title has divested himself of possession in favour of a third party he has no possession which can be disturbed by mere entry and which will entitle him to sue for damages for trespass.

– Obaseki, JSC. Ekpan v. Agunu (1986)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.