CORAM

---

PHILIP NNAEMEKA-AGU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ANTHONY NNAEMEZIE ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

MOHAMMED OJOMU APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent/plaintiff claimed damages and injunction against the appellant/defendants for demolishing a building on a piece of land which the respondent had leased from the Ojora Chieftaincy Family paying annual rental from 1961 to the time of the alleged demolition.

---

HELD

---

The Court held that a right of possession had enured to the respondent which was not defeasible by the subsequent Lease of the land by Deed, by the Ojora Chieftaincy Family, or a faction thereof, to the appellant

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the appellant was liable for trespass when he had no previous knowledge that the land had been granted to the respondent

Whether it would be in keeping with the law and the spirit of justice to make the appellant pay damages for the demolished building which was carried out, as the evidence shows, on the instruction of Alhaji Rasaki Ojora before the land was granted him since he took no part directly or indirectly in the demolition

Whether the interest acquired by the respondent as a customary tenant is of the nature of an equitable interest and whether it was terminated by the trespass committed by Alhaji Rasaki Ojora and his agents and servants

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

2. FORFEITURE OF CUSTOMARY TENANCY

---

“Acts which may constitute mis-behaviour justifying forfeiture of the customary tenancy may vary from one situation to another, depending upon the particular circumstances of each case. The Court has a duty to consider the complaints of the landlord against the customary tenant and to determine whether they are of such serious nature as to justify forfeiture.” Per Aniagolu JSC

---

3. CUSTOMARY TENANTS OBLIGATION

---

“It is well settled law that a customary tenants obligations are (1) to pay his rents into which tributes formerly paid in olden times have been converted; (2) be of good behaviour and (3) at all times acknowledge the title of the landlord. The proof of money paid for land coupled with an entry into possession is sufficient to defeat the title of a subsequent purchaser of the legal estate when the possession is continuous… It should be observed that the interest a customary tenant has in land subject to customary tenancy is possession.” Per Obaseki JSC

---

1. CARDINAL POINTS IN CUSTOMARY TENANCY

---

“The cardinal point is that the possession of the good -behaving customary tenant is protected by law and dispossession is not allowed… Another cardinal point is that in indigenous customary tenancy these abstract legal notions, as understood in English Law, hardly apply. Payment of rent or customary tribute as agreed, by a customary tenant following the grant made, coupled with going into possession, gives the customary tenant a right of possession which the law protects even against a subsequent purchaser of the radical title in the land.” Per Aniagolu JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

Josian Aghenghen and Ors. v. Chief Maduku Waghoreghor and Ors (1974) 1 SC.1;

Asani Taiwo and Ors. v. Alamo Akinwumi and Ors. (1975) 4 Sc.143 at 183-184.

Lasisi and Another v. Tubi and Another (1974)12 SC 71 at 74; (1974)1 All NLR (Pt.2) 438.

Caulcrick v. Harding (1926) 7 NLR 48

Orasanmi v. Idowu (1959) 4 FSC 40

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT