MICHAEL IFEANYI OJIBAH VS UBAKA OJIBAH
July 11, 2025M.A. AKINSUROJU & ORS VS CHIEF PAUL O. JOSHUA
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1991-06) Legalpedia 55311 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Mon Jun 10, 1991
Suit Number: SC 169/1987
CORAM
M. BELLO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.O OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.G KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
S. KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
P. NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
O. OLATAWURA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
O. OLATAWURA AND ORS
APPELLANTS
SA’ADU YAKUBU AND ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND MATTER – WHETHER THE STATUS OF CUSTOMARY TENANT WAS ALTERED BY THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE LAND USE ACT IN RESPECT OF NON – URBAN AREA?
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant/plaintiff sought a declaration against the respondents that they remain their tenants and that the land in which they occupy was their own from time immemorial amongst other reliefs. Their reliefs were granted at the trial court but set aside on appeal. It is against this backdrop that the appellant have appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held;
That the land use Act, 1978 though grants occupiers of land in non urban area deem right of occupancy but such right was still subject to the incidences of customary tenancy.
ISSUES
Whether, having regard to the provisions of the Land Use Act 1978, customary owners are entitled to be granted declaration of title to a parcel of land against their customary tenants.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
STATUS OF A CUSTOMARY TENANT UNDER THE LAND USE ACT
“Consequently, in the absence of express provision in the Act divesting the customary owner of his rights or extinguishing the same, Section 36 ought to be strictly construed so as to preserve the rights of the customary owner. Since by definition under Section 50(1), the customary right of occupancy deemed to have been granted to the occupier by the Act was the right to use or occupy the land lawfully in accordance with customary law, it follows that the said customary right of occupancy was subject to the terms and conditions of the customary tenancy in accordance with customary law”. ( Per Mohammed Bello CJN)
REVOCATION OF CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
Indeed the whole power of revocation of a customary right of occupancy, which includes a deemed grant, under Section 28 of the Land Use Act carries the clear implication that such rights survived the promulgation of the Act. For if such customary rights were abolished by the Act there would be nothing left to be revoked. Where a certificate of occupancy is granted to a tenant who is subject to a customary tenancy, the overlord retains his right as a reversion in case the customary right of occupancy is revoked.
CASES CITED
1. Walsh v. Secretary of State for India (1863) 10 H.L.C. 367.
2. Oni v. Arimoro (1973) 3 SC.(Reprint)114;(1973) 3 SC.163)
3. Hough v. Windus (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 224.
4. Onwuka v. Ediala (1989) I SC.(Pt.II)1;(1989)1 SC.(Pt.II)1;(1989)1 NWLR (Pt.96) 182
5. Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 745.
6. Akaghue v. Ogun (1976) 6 SC. 63 at 74.
7. Taimo v. Akinwunmi (1975)2 SC.(Reprint)23;(1975)6 SC. 143.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Land Use Act, 1978.
2. The Constitution of Nigeria, 1963.
