ROCKONOH PROPERTY CO. LTD.V 1. NIGERIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
June 20, 2025EDET OKON IKO V. THE STATE
June 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 80681
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 13, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 131/1996
CORAM
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SUNDAY OBASOHAN APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs claimed that the land in dispute was jointly owned by the parties’ fathers and led evidence to that effect. The trial judge granted their claim and held that the parties were entitled to certificate of occupancy in respect of the rooms inherited from their fathers on the land.
HELD
The court held that the parties were co- owners of the land but set aside the declaration for separate certificate of occupancy in the absence of a partition and ordered that either party may apply to the High Court for partitioning.
ISSUES
1. whether the trial Judge had properly found title of the respondents proved without resolving the issue of competing title raised by the appellant’s defence; 2. whether in terms of the Land Use Act, 1978, the 2nd declaration made by the judge could properly be made.3. whether the judge made a proper use of the judgment in suit B/233/80 .4. whether there was evidence of partitioning in accordance with Bini Native Law and Custom.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHETHER A PARTY CLAIMING JOINT OWNERSHIP NEEDS TO PROVE THE ROOT OF TITLE OF THE JOINT OWNERSHIP
A party claiming to be joint owners of a property does not necessarily by such claim set out to prove the root of title of the joint ownership. If he can prove a joint acquisition of the property the root of their joint ownership becomes inconsequential to the declaration of the joint ownership he seeks- Ayoola J.S.C.
PREREQUISITE FOR CLAIM FOR SEPERATE RIGHT IN LAND SUBJECT TO CO-OWNERSHIP
When land has been held in co-ownership, partitioning, whether by agreement of the co-owners or by order of court, is an essential prerequisite to a claim to any separate right or interest in the land – Ayoola J.S.C.
WHETHER THE COMMON LAW RULE OF JOINT TENANCY IS APPLICABLE TO CUSTOMARY LAW
It is misconceived to assume that a joint acquisition of property subject to customary law creates joint tenancy in the meaning in which the terms is known at common law. In my opinion, what is created is co-ownership to be attended by its own incidents as developed in customary law and not common law. Such incidents of co-ownership have been developed in regard to family property and there is no reason why such incidents should not apply by analogy to joint acquisition of property – Ayoola J.S.C.
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Land Use Act
