When general damages are sought on the basis of trespass to land, they would represent payment for the tort of trespass, not the value of the land; and the land remains at least under the possessory ownership or right of the plaintiff claimant.
— Uwaifo, JSC. Rockonoh v. NTP (2001) – SC.71/1995
SHARE ON
Accordingly, where one in possession of land is said to be a trespasser, the onus is on the person asserting such an allegation to establish that he has a better title to the land than the person in possession. See Pius Amakor v. Benedict Obiefuna (1974) 3 S.C. 67. (1974) 1 All NLR 119 OR (1974) NMLR 331. It will now be necessary to ascertain whether the appellant was able to prove a better title to the land in dispute than the 1st respondent.
— Iguh, JSC. Kyari v Alkali (2001) – SC.224/1993
Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) at page 128 saying:- “Generally speaking, as a claim of trespass to land is rooted in exclusive possession, all a plaintiff need to prove is that he has exclusive possession, of the land in dispute. But once a defendant claims to be the owner of the land in dispute title to it is put in issue, and, in order to succeed, the plaintiff must show a better title than that of the defendant.”
The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted by the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.
— Lord Camden in Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98
There is no duty on a person having estate or interest in land or other property for that matter to raise protest against a trespass or encroachment on the property or invasion of his right on same if he has no reason to believe that such a trespasser, encroacher or invader mistakenly conceives himself to be acting lawfully because in such a situation there cannot be said to be any misrepresentation, delusion or inaction from the owner’s part, encouraging or fostering the trespasser in expending money by developing the property. There is nothing to stop the owner from asserting his right against the trespasser at any time however that may be, subject to any applicable statutory provision of limitation.
– Wali JSC. Kayode v. Odutola (2001)
Although generally speaking, a claim for trespass is rooted in exclusive possession or the right to such possession of the land in dispute, once a defendant claims to be the owner of the land in dispute, title to it is put in issue, and in order to succeed, the plaintiff must show a better title than that of the defendant: see Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 All NLR 119.
– Katsina-Alu, JSC. Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003)
It has been argued that there is conflict between the common law principle and the provision of the limitation law. I respectfully disagree. One complements the other. They are not conflicting. It is not only in Nigeria that there are limitation laws. There is Limitation Act of 1980 which is a British Act of parliament applicable only to England and Wales. The British Act Limits actions in tort to 6 years. Section 2 of the Act reads: “Time limit for actions founded on tort: ‘An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”
In spite of the above provision, it does not apply to continuing trespass. It is therefore in my respectful view an error to argue that the provision of the various Limitation Laws in Nigeria do not allow for the doctrine of continuing trespass.’”
Per Awotoye, JCA. Chikere & Ors. v Chevron Nigeria Ltd. (2018) LPELR-44123 (CA).
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry