No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Trespass and Title to Land in the Northern States of Nigeria
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
The case of Oguche v. Iliyasu & Ors. raises several interesting issues in the law of the Northern States of Nigeria, in particular the definitions of “native” and “non-native” and the powers of the Commissioner under the Land Tenure Law, the relationship between title to land and the rules governing trespass to land, the protection afforded by the Public Officers (Protection) Law and the award of exemplary damages for oppressive acts by public officers. The facts of the case will be given first, followed by a summary of the judgment and comment on the issues raised.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Journal of African Law , Volume 17 , Issue 1: Special number: TORTS IN AFRICA , Spring\Printemps 1973 , pp. 94 - 115
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1973
References
2 Suit No. K/56/71. High Court of Kano State; reported infra at [1973] J.A.L. p. 116. I am indebted to Dr. J. O. Fabunmi of the University of Ife for drawing this case to my attention.
3 Cap. 59, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963.
4 Cap. 111, ibid.
5 State Commissioners have now replaced Ministers under the new constitutional arrangements: see infra, p. 98.
page 95 note 1 Jones, S.P.J., uses the phrase, “local law and custom”. The phrase used in the text is the statutory phrase: see High Court Law, s. 34, cap. 49, Laws of Northern Nigeria; Land Tenure Law, s. 2.
page 95 note 2 Considered infra, pp. 98–100.
page 95 note 3 This Edict was not available in the United Kingdom at the time of writing.
page 95 note 4 Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 12th ed., 1961, para. 1141; Rogers v. Spence (1844), 13 M. & W. 571, at p. 581; 153 E.R. 239, at p. 243.
page 96 note 1 Foster v. Warblington U.D.C., [1906] 1 K.B. 648; Bristow v. Cormican (1878), 3 App. Cas. 641; Lord Advocate v. Young (1887), 12 App. Cas. 544.
page 96 note 2 1962 N.N.L.R. 92; [1962] 2 All N.L.R. 230.
page 96 note 3 [1913] 2 Ch. 349.
page 97 note 1 Cap. 111, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963.
page 97 note 2 Section 2, ibid.
page 97 note 3 [1961] All N.L.R. 135.
page 97 note 4 [1964] 2 W.L.R. 269; [1964] 1 All E.R. 367.
page 97 note 5 Cap. 123, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963. See Alhaji Umaru Danjara v. Ibrahim Mohammed Bai, [1965] N.M.L.R. 455.
page 97 note 6 Now termed “local government authority”: see, e.g., Native Authority Law (Amendment) Edict, No. 14 of 1968, Kano State, s. 2.
page 97 note 7 Section 28 (1) (a) (b) (c).
page 97 note 8 Section 34 (2) (b), (3) (e).
page 97 note 9 Section 26.
page 98 note 1 See Bisichi Tin Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Okonkwo, 1961 N.N.L.R. 60. See also Martins v. Molade (1930), 9 N.L.R. 53.
page 98 note 2 See infra, pp. 104–107.
page 98 note 3 No. 1 of 1966.
page 98 note 4 No. 14 of 1967.
page 98 note 5 No. 27 of 1967.
page 98 note 6 No. 10 of 1968.
page 99 note 1 No. 8 of 1900.
page 99 note 2 No. 11 of 1906.
page 99 note 3 See File No. S.N.P. 17 6828/42367, National Archives, Kaduna.
page 99 note 4 No. 1 of 1916.
page 99 note 5 See Circular issued by Ministry of Lands and Survey, No. 39484/151 of 25/3/58.
page 99 note 6 See Memo, prepared for use by Crown Agents in 1921, File No. S.N.P. 9 1404/3189, National Archives, Kaduna.
page 99 note 7 See, e.g., Ejinkeonye v. Attorney-General & Ors, unreported, Suit No. Z/19/1964 (High Court).
page 100 note 1 “Ilorin Land and the Land Tenure Law” (1971) 5 Nig. L.J. 159, at p. 161.
page 100 note 2 12th ed., 1961, para. 1141.
page 101 note 1 1962 N.N.L.R. 92; [1962] 1 All N.L.R. 230.
page 101 note 2 No. 1 of 1916.
page 101 note 3 “The interpretation of the Land Tenure Law of Northern Nigeria”, [1970] J.A.L. 155.
page 101 note 4 Ibid., at p. 175.
page 102 note 1 See Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. 38, pp. 743 et seq.
page 102 note 2 See Holdsworth, History of English Law, Vol. 7, p. 59.
page 102 note 3 See Megarry & Wade, Law of Real Property, 3rd ed., 1966, p. 997. On relativity of title in English law see generally Hargreaves, “Terminology and Title in Ejectment”, (1940) 56 L.Q.R. 376, and “Modern Real Property”, (1956) 19 M.L.R. 14. See also Wiren, “Plea of Ius Tertii in Ejectment”, (1925) 41 L.Q.R. 139, and Rudden, “The Terminology of Title”, (1964) 80 L.Q.R. 63.
page 102 note 4 See Rogers v. Spence (1844), 13 M. & W. 571, at p. 581, 153 E.R. 239, at p. 243.
page 102 note 5 By virtue of the Forcible Entry Acts 1381–1623.
page 102 note 6 See Pollock & Maitland, History of English Law, Vol. 2, pp. 40–46.
page 102 note 7 Section 2 of the Land Tenure Law defines it as “a title to the use and occupation of land and includes a customary right of occupancy and a statutory right of occupancy but does not include a licence granted under section 16.” See Hurley, S.P.J., in Oyene v. Abogu, 1958 N.R.N.L.R. 103 at p. 107: “A right of occupancy is not a right in any general sense; it is a title”.
page 102 note 8 Land Tenure Law, s. 6.
page 102 note 9 Ibid., s. 2.
page 102 note 10 See Bisichi Tin Co. (Nig.), Ltd. v. Okonkwo 1961 N.N.L.R. 60.
page 102 note 11 See The Queen v. Minister of Lands & Survey 1963 N.N.L.R. 50.
page 102 note 12 Section 44.
page 103 note 1 See Pollock & Wright, Possession in the Common Law, p. 95.
page 103 note 2 Bristow v. Cormican (1878), 3 App. Cas. 641. See also Wuta-Ofei v. Danquah, [1961] 3 All E.R. 596; Fowley Marine, Ltd. v. Gafford, [1968] 2 Q.B. 618.
page 103 note 3 Lord Advocate v. Young (1887), 12 App. Cas. 544. See also Every v. Smith (1857), 26 L.J. Ex. 344.
page 103 note 4 See Revett v. Brown (1828), 5 Bing. 7; 130 E.R. 961; Allan v. Liverpool Overseers (1874), L.R. 9 Q.B. 180 at 191. See also Halsbury, 3rd ed., Vol. 30, p. 743.
page 103 note 5 See George Will v. George Will (1924), 5 N.L.R. 76. See also Oluwi v. Eniola, [1967] N.M.L.R. 339.
page 103 note 6 See Ramsay v. Margrett, [1894] 2 Q.B. 18; Lord Cairns, L.C., in Bristow v. Cormican (1878), 3 App. Cas. 641, at pp. 651–652.
page 103 note 7 See Jones v. Chapman (1847), 2 Ex. 803; 154 E.R. 717; Humphrey v. Nowland (1862), 15 Moo. P.C.C. 343.
page 103 note 8 Land Tenure Law, s. 44 (3).
page 104 note 1 High Court Law, Cap. 49 Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963, s. 28.
page 104 note 2 1962 N.N.L.R. 92; [1962] 1 All N.L.R. 230.
page 104 note 3 No. 1 of 1916.
page 104 note 4 See infra, pp. 109–115.
page 105 note 1 10th ed., at p. 212.
page 105 note 2 See Orjiako v. Orjiako: unreported, Suit No. JD/27/1955, referred to in Bisichi Tin Co. (Nig.), Ltd. v. Okonkwo 1961 N.N.L.R. 60, at p. 61.
page 105 note 3 Cap. 45, Laws of Nigeria, 1948. See Harry v. Martins (1949), 19 N.L.R. 42; see also Item v. Paul, [1957] W.R.N.L.R. 66; Chidiak v. Coker (1954), 14 W.A.C.A. 506.
page 105 note 4 See “The interpretation of the Land Tenure Law”, [1970] J.A.L. 155.
page 105 note 5 Alienation by sub-grantees.
page 106 note 1 Section 26 (2).
page 106 note 2 Section 26 (3).
page 106 note 3 Granted under s. 16.
page 106 note 4 See s. 2 for a definition.
page 106 note 5 See per Unsworth, F.J., in Solanke v. Abed & Anot. [1962] N.N.L.R., at p. 94; [1962] 1 All N.L.R. at p. 233. See also Singh v. Kulubya, [1964] A.C. 142, where agreements to lease mailo lands in Uganda required consent and where penalties were provided for non-compliance. The Board held such agreements without consent void for illegality and that the person in possession thereunder could not rely on illegal agreements to justify remaining in possession. However, the considerations of public policy expressed in this case are not entirely relevant to the situation under the Land Tenure Law.
page 107 note 1 Applying the remarks of Neville, J., in Hope v. Osborne, [1913] 2 Ch. 349.
page 107 note 2 See Halsbuty's Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. 30, p. 686. See also Seidman, “Constitutional standards of judicial review of administrative action in Nigeria” (1965) 1 Nig. L.J. 232, at p. 239.
page 107 note 3 See Jessel, M.R., in Bagshaw v. Buxton Local Board of Health (1875), 1 Ch. D. 220, at pp. 224–225.
page 107 note 4 See generally Hood Phillips, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th ed., 1967, pp. 665–667.
page 107 note 5 Cap. 49, Law of Northern Nigeria, 1963.
page 108 note 1 See Hargreaves, “Terminology and title in ejectment” (1940) 56 L.Q.R. 376, at p. 383. See also the illuminating review of the law on this point by WINDEYER, J., in Commonwealth v. Anderson (1960), 105 C.L.R. 303, at pp. 318–325.
page 108 note 2 (1586), 4 Leon 184; 74 E.R. 809.
page 108 note 3 (1647), Aleyn 10; 82 E.R. 887.
page 108 note 4 (1825), 4 B. & C. 574, 107 E.R. 1174.
page 108 note 5 Because of non-compliance with the provisions of s. 5 of 1 Anne c. 7.
page 108 note 6 See generally Roberts-Wray, Commonwealth and Colonial Law, Chap. 14.
page 108 note 7 (1888) 7 N.Z.L.R. 81; see also Hardy v. Wise (1856), Legge 897; Wilshire v. Dearin (1857), Legge 1000, (S.C.N.S.W.): 9 Australian Digest 2nd ed. 641 (Crown I ands).
page 108 note 8 (1962), 32 D.L.R. (2d) 547.
page 109 note 1 Ibid., at pp. 561–562.
page 109 note 2 Esp. Marchischuk v. Lee, [1945] 2 D.L.R. 484.
page 109 note 3 Cap. 111, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963.
page 109 note 4 No. 39 of 1916; cap. 186, Law of Nigeria 1948; cap. 168, Laws of Nigeria 1958.
page 109 note 5 56 & 57 Vict. C. 61. See generally Emden, “The scope of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893” (1923) 39 L.Q.R. 341; Hart, Local Government Law, 5th ed., 1952, pp. 418–423; Clerk & Lindsell, Torts, 10th ed., 1947, pp. 255–263.
page 109 note 6 The English Act provided for a period of six months, later increased to one year by the Limitation Act, 1939 (2 & 3 Geo. 6, C. 21).
page 110 note 1 Cmnd. 7740 (1949); Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz. 2, c. 36).
page 110 note 2 See, e.g. Lord Kilbrandon in Burmah Oil Co. v. Lord Advocate, 1962 S.L.T. 347, at p. 357.
page 110 note 3 See, e.g., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Singapore Harbour Board, [1952] A.C. 452.
page 110 note 4 See, e.g., Bradford Corp. v. Myers, [1916] 1 A.C. 242.
page 110 note 5 See, e.g., Baird v. Glasgow Corp., [1934] S.C. 359.
page 110 note 6 Cf., e.g., the Recovery of Premises Act, cap. 176, Laws of Nigeria 1958, which is derived from the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict., c. 74). Note Lord GODDARD, C.J., in Ramsbottom v. Snelson, [1948] 1 K.B. 473, at p. 477 on the English Act and DE LESTANG, C.J., in Oluwo v. Adebowale (1959) L.L.R. 78 on the Nigerian counterpart. The 1838 Act was repealed by the Rent Act, 1965 (c. 75).
page 110 note 7 See, e.g., Gregory v. Tor quay Corp., [1911] 2 K.B. 556.
page 110 note 8 (1946), 12 W.A.C.A. 81.
page 110 note 9 Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1945, Vol. X, Laws of Nigeria 1948. See also Paul v. George (1959) 4 F.S.C. 198.
page 110 note 10 [1961] All N.L.R. 357.
page 110 note 11 [1964] 1 All N.L.R. 96.
page 111 note 1 Cap. 168, Laws of Nigeria 1958.
page 111 note 2 (1946), 12 W.A.C.A. 81.
page 111 note 3 See notes at p. 582, Vol. IV, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963.
page 111 note 4 See Lord Tucker in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Singapore Harbour Board, [1952] A.C. 452, at p. 463.
page 111 note 5 [1961] All N.L.R. 135, at pp. 136–137.
page 111 note 6 E.g., Obiefuna v. Okoye, [1964] 1 All N.L.R. 96; Nwankwere v. Adewunmi, [1966] 1 All N.L.R. 129.
page 112 note 1 Section 2.
page 112 note 2 [1966] 1 All N.L.R. 129, at p. 134.
page 112 note 3 [1929] 1 K.B. 419, at p. 427.
page 112 note 4 See Inspector General of Police v. Olatunji (1955), 21 N.L.R. 52.
page 112 note 5 See Ekemode v. Alausa, [1961] All N.L.R. 135.
page 112 note 6 [1929] 1 K.B., at pp. 427–428.
page 112 note 7 See also Spooner v. Juddow (1850), 4 Moo. Ind. App. 353 at 379:1 8 E.R. 734 at p. 744; if a party bona fide, and not absurdly, believes that he is acting in pursuance of a statute, he is entitled to the special protection which the legislature intended for him, although he has done an illegal act.
page 112 note 8 (1871), L.R. 6 Q.B. 724.
page 112 note 9 5 & 6 Wm. 4 C. 50.
page 112 note 10 (1919), 89 L.J.P.C. 1, at p. 7.
page 113 note 1 See Betts v. Receiver for Metro. Police Dist., [1932] 2 K.B. 595.
page 113 note 2 [1918] S.C. 415.
page 113 note 3 See the cases collected in 38 Eng. & Emp. Dig., pp. 124–130 (Replacement Vol.).
page 113 note 4 [1961] All N.L.R. 135.
page 113 note 5 [1966] 1 All N.L.R. 129.
page 113 note 6 [1961] All N.L.R. 135, at pp. 137–138.
page 113 note 7 Ibid.
page 114 note 1 [1929] 1 K.B. 419, at p. 429.
page 114 note 2 See s. 44 (2).
page 114 note 3 (1871), L.R. 6 Q.B. 724.
page 114 note 4 (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 391; 109 E.R. 833.
page 114 note 5 [1918] S.C. 415.
page 114 note 6 Pp. 108–109, supra.
page 114 note 7 (1953), 20 N.L.R. 169.
page 114 note 8 (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 299.
page 114 note 9 See also Grant v. Magistrates of Dufftown, [1924] S.C. 952.
page 114 note 10 (1912), 77 J.P.84, at p. 85.
page 114 note 11 Halsbwry, Vol. 23, 1st ed., 343.
page 115 note 1 [1906] 1 Ch. 342.
page 115 note 2 [1964] 1 All N.L.R. 402.
page 115 note 3 [1964] 1 All E.R. 367.
page 115 note 4 [1964] 1 All N.L.R. 402, at p. 406.
page 115 note 5 (1972) 21 I.C.L.Q. 119.
page 115 note 6 [1971] E.A. 91.
page 115 note 7 [1971] E.A. 260.
page 115 note 8 [1972] 2 W.L.R. 645; (1972) 88 L.Q.R. 305 (A.L.G.).