LAND LAW CASES EXAM QUESTIONS
WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS
Ekpendu v Erika - Answer-The alienation of family property without the consent of
the family head is void abinitio. Reinforced in Solomon v Mogaji.
Esan v Faro - Answer-Where the family head alienates family land without the
concurrence of the principal members the sale is voidable
Esan v Faro - Answer-Where a junior member of the family plays a significant role in
the management or family affairs, he may be co-opted into the family council as a
principal member. In this case the appellant had at one time been the secretary to
the family.
Balogun v Balogun - Answer-it was held that by partitioning with the consent of the
entire members of the family, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property
in dispute.
Bajulaiye v Akapo - Answer-Court interfering in partitioning of family property - will
not interfere unless it is just and equitable to do so.
In this case the plaintiff sought partition because he no longer wanted to live in the
family house. The defendants were also unwilling to have the plaintiff share in the
occupation of the premises or alternatively in the rents derived there from. It was
held that the court would not order a sale of family property merely because some
interested parties desire to turn the property into a cash cow. The plaintiffs had not
made a valid case for an order of partition.
Ajobi v Oloko - Answer-The plaintiffs were not allowed to participate in the
occupation of the property so the partition was ordered by the court.
Ajibade v Jura - Answer-The court ordered the sale because the family property
consisted of two rooms and seven family members were entitled to reside in it. Thus
the property was incapable of fulfilling its role as family house.
Suberu v Sunmonu - Answer-A wife cannot inherit or administer her husband's
estate in her own right
Ehigie v Ehigie - Answer-In cases where there is a succession by a sole heir. Where
the eldest surviving son does not perform all the funeral ceremonies, the right of
inheritance passes to the next-eldest surviving son.
Aghengen v Waghoreghor - Answer-Customary tenants are not gifted the land, they
are not borrowers or lessees. They are grantees of land under customary tenure and
hold as such a determinable interest in the land which may be enjoyed in perpetuity
subject to good behaviour.
Nwosu v Uche - Answer-The court of appeal held that customary tenancy may well
be established without the payment of tribute under customary law.
, Ayoola v Ogunjimi - Answer-customary tenants have the right to exclude every other
person from the land and in some cases even the overlord - right to exclusive
possession
Chief Essi v Itsekiri Communal Land Trustee - Answer-The grantor cannot grant to
another person the same interest, or any part of it which he has granted to his
customary tenant under native law and custom without the customary tenant's
consent or permission.
Lasisi v Tubi - Answer-The customary tenant can lawfully exclude the purchaser of
the overlord's reversionary title.
The rule is 'nemo dat quod non habet' i.e no one gives what he does not have. A
purchaser can never get what the vendor himself did not possess. The respondents
bought the disputed land subject to the unextinguished possessory title of the
appellants (the customary tenants).
Shell BP v Abedi - Answer-in claiming against a third party for trespass the
customary tenant must claim as a customary tenant and not as the landowner
otherwise the claim will fail.
Lasisi v Tubi - Answer-Where the customary tenant abandons the land without any
reason and no intention to return, he is said to have extinguished his interest by
abandonment.
Ufoma v Onosi - Answer-If the tenancy is granted for a particular period the defluxion
of the time determines it.
Taiwo v Akinwumi - Answer-Consistent denial of the overlord's title is misbehaviour
that can give rise to forfeiture.
Sagay v New Independent - Answer-Alienation of land without consent or prior
approval of the overlord is misbehaviour that can give rise to forfeiture.
Abioye v Yakubu - Answer-Without the consent, permission or authority of the
plaintiffs, the defendants erected three big sign-boards bearing an inscription that
suggested that the land belonged to them. The supreme court held that such claim
or rival ownership was a direct denial of the overlord's title and that it is a
misbehaviour that could give rise to forfeiture.
Abioye v Yakubu - Answer-Cannot be said that once the customary tenant
committed an act which amounted to misbehaviour he forfeited his tenancy, even
though the overlord had not sought an order of court therefore.
- The overlord was entitled to overlook or waive the act of misbehaviour and if he did
the relationship of the parties would have continued.
- Like in other cases of forfeiture, a customary tenant whose tenancy was threatened
with forfeiture on grounds of misbehaviour was always entitled to apply for relief
against forfeiture which might be granted by the court.
WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS
Ekpendu v Erika - Answer-The alienation of family property without the consent of
the family head is void abinitio. Reinforced in Solomon v Mogaji.
Esan v Faro - Answer-Where the family head alienates family land without the
concurrence of the principal members the sale is voidable
Esan v Faro - Answer-Where a junior member of the family plays a significant role in
the management or family affairs, he may be co-opted into the family council as a
principal member. In this case the appellant had at one time been the secretary to
the family.
Balogun v Balogun - Answer-it was held that by partitioning with the consent of the
entire members of the family, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property
in dispute.
Bajulaiye v Akapo - Answer-Court interfering in partitioning of family property - will
not interfere unless it is just and equitable to do so.
In this case the plaintiff sought partition because he no longer wanted to live in the
family house. The defendants were also unwilling to have the plaintiff share in the
occupation of the premises or alternatively in the rents derived there from. It was
held that the court would not order a sale of family property merely because some
interested parties desire to turn the property into a cash cow. The plaintiffs had not
made a valid case for an order of partition.
Ajobi v Oloko - Answer-The plaintiffs were not allowed to participate in the
occupation of the property so the partition was ordered by the court.
Ajibade v Jura - Answer-The court ordered the sale because the family property
consisted of two rooms and seven family members were entitled to reside in it. Thus
the property was incapable of fulfilling its role as family house.
Suberu v Sunmonu - Answer-A wife cannot inherit or administer her husband's
estate in her own right
Ehigie v Ehigie - Answer-In cases where there is a succession by a sole heir. Where
the eldest surviving son does not perform all the funeral ceremonies, the right of
inheritance passes to the next-eldest surviving son.
Aghengen v Waghoreghor - Answer-Customary tenants are not gifted the land, they
are not borrowers or lessees. They are grantees of land under customary tenure and
hold as such a determinable interest in the land which may be enjoyed in perpetuity
subject to good behaviour.
Nwosu v Uche - Answer-The court of appeal held that customary tenancy may well
be established without the payment of tribute under customary law.
, Ayoola v Ogunjimi - Answer-customary tenants have the right to exclude every other
person from the land and in some cases even the overlord - right to exclusive
possession
Chief Essi v Itsekiri Communal Land Trustee - Answer-The grantor cannot grant to
another person the same interest, or any part of it which he has granted to his
customary tenant under native law and custom without the customary tenant's
consent or permission.
Lasisi v Tubi - Answer-The customary tenant can lawfully exclude the purchaser of
the overlord's reversionary title.
The rule is 'nemo dat quod non habet' i.e no one gives what he does not have. A
purchaser can never get what the vendor himself did not possess. The respondents
bought the disputed land subject to the unextinguished possessory title of the
appellants (the customary tenants).
Shell BP v Abedi - Answer-in claiming against a third party for trespass the
customary tenant must claim as a customary tenant and not as the landowner
otherwise the claim will fail.
Lasisi v Tubi - Answer-Where the customary tenant abandons the land without any
reason and no intention to return, he is said to have extinguished his interest by
abandonment.
Ufoma v Onosi - Answer-If the tenancy is granted for a particular period the defluxion
of the time determines it.
Taiwo v Akinwumi - Answer-Consistent denial of the overlord's title is misbehaviour
that can give rise to forfeiture.
Sagay v New Independent - Answer-Alienation of land without consent or prior
approval of the overlord is misbehaviour that can give rise to forfeiture.
Abioye v Yakubu - Answer-Without the consent, permission or authority of the
plaintiffs, the defendants erected three big sign-boards bearing an inscription that
suggested that the land belonged to them. The supreme court held that such claim
or rival ownership was a direct denial of the overlord's title and that it is a
misbehaviour that could give rise to forfeiture.
Abioye v Yakubu - Answer-Cannot be said that once the customary tenant
committed an act which amounted to misbehaviour he forfeited his tenancy, even
though the overlord had not sought an order of court therefore.
- The overlord was entitled to overlook or waive the act of misbehaviour and if he did
the relationship of the parties would have continued.
- Like in other cases of forfeiture, a customary tenant whose tenancy was threatened
with forfeiture on grounds of misbehaviour was always entitled to apply for relief
against forfeiture which might be granted by the court.
