The plaintiffs’ claim, jointly and severally, against the defendants is for a declaration of title
to the land in dispute. The plaintiffs are claiming as fee-simple owners of the land in dispute
by virtue of the consent judgement Exhibit P4. I am satisfied on the evidence, both oral and
documentary, that the plaintiffs have established their claim as fee-simple owners to the land
in dispute. In exercise of the powers conferred by S.40 of the Land Use Act of 1978, I hereby
declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in respect to the land in
dispute, verged brown on Plan No. JA/30/73, drawn by J.A. Adegboye, Licensed Surveyor,
and marked as Exhibit P5 in the proceedings.
Although the Act purports to vest all the land on the state with the governor
holding same in trust for the people, it is clear from the above cases that the pattern of
land dispute remains unaltered. More so, the number of feuding communities and
ethnic groups has increased tremendously. There is now, literally, ‘armed soil
governance wars’ among Nigerian people
56 in almost all the 36 states of the
federation.
The problem created by sections 34 and 36 already referred to above, is more
pronounced in the relationship of the overlord and the customary tenant. Both
according to these sections have vested interest in the land which is subject to
customary tenancy. This position is further strengthened by the rule that neither of
them could alienate the land without the consent of the governor of the state.
These provisions which simply provide that land is to continue to be held by the
person in whom it was vested, are not only ambiguous in the sense that they do not
tell us which of these persons under the customary law shall be entitled to the right of
occupancy of the land,
57 but are also dangerous since they have led to a lot of
misconceptions and resultant warfare. Of course, it should be expected that the
overlord would continue to insist on the payment of tribute by the customary tenant,
and as we have seen from Animashaun v. Sufiami,
58 refusal to pay tribute would
amount to a denial of the overlord’s title which will incur forfeiture
59 because the
customary law defines a “landlord as the overlord while the tribute-paying person
remains the servant or tenant”.
60 It appears the Act has not affected this position
56 The people of Modakeke and Ife are another example showing the attitude of the people to the
land despite the Land Use Act. The Modakeke perhaps influenced by the genial intendment of the
Act stopped the payment of Ishakole (tribute) to the Ife people. The Ijaws, Itsekiri and Urhobos,
Aguleri Land Crisis, Tiv – Jukum, etc.
57 Okuojenor v. Sagay [1958] W.R.L.R. 70; Ochoma v. Unosi (1960) 4 E.N.L.R. 107 and Eyamba
v. Holmes (1924) 5 N.L.R. 83.
58 Animashaun v. Sufiami (Unreported) Suit No. LD/1977 Judgement (10-06-1980).
59 Animashaun v. Sufiami (Unreported) Suit No. LD/1977 Judgement (10-06-1980).
60 This quotation from the Sunday Tribune (February 9th, 1986) underscores this fact. It reads:
“Traditional rulers who had before the birth of the Decree been deemed custodians of land in their
domain felt jilted, spited and trimmed by the Decree. During a courtesy call on ex-President Shehu
Shagari (9-09-1982) six traditional rulers registered their opposition to the decree. . . . In a
memorandum presented to the ex-President, the traditional rulers stated that ‘the traditional concept
of land should be held in trust by the living for the dead as the unborn. Thus the trustees are
variously the Oba or the family or even at times, the individual.’ The traditional rulers noted that the
Land Use Act was unnecessary as States of the Federation could legally and compulsorily acquire
land for overriding public purposes with the payment of compensation.”
Soil Governance and Sustainable Land Use System in Nigeria: The Paradox of. . .
171
to the land in dispute. The plaintiffs are claiming as fee-simple owners of the land in dispute
by virtue of the consent judgement Exhibit P4. I am satisfied on the evidence, both oral and
documentary, that the plaintiffs have established their claim as fee-simple owners to the land
in dispute. In exercise of the powers conferred by S.40 of the Land Use Act of 1978, I hereby
declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in respect to the land in
dispute, verged brown on Plan No. JA/30/73, drawn by J.A. Adegboye, Licensed Surveyor,
and marked as Exhibit P5 in the proceedings.
Although the Act purports to vest all the land on the state with the governor
holding same in trust for the people, it is clear from the above cases that the pattern of
land dispute remains unaltered. More so, the number of feuding communities and
ethnic groups has increased tremendously. There is now, literally, ‘armed soil
governance wars’ among Nigerian people
56 in almost all the 36 states of the
federation.
The problem created by sections 34 and 36 already referred to above, is more
pronounced in the relationship of the overlord and the customary tenant. Both
according to these sections have vested interest in the land which is subject to
customary tenancy. This position is further strengthened by the rule that neither of
them could alienate the land without the consent of the governor of the state.
These provisions which simply provide that land is to continue to be held by the
person in whom it was vested, are not only ambiguous in the sense that they do not
tell us which of these persons under the customary law shall be entitled to the right of
occupancy of the land,
57 but are also dangerous since they have led to a lot of
misconceptions and resultant warfare. Of course, it should be expected that the
overlord would continue to insist on the payment of tribute by the customary tenant,
and as we have seen from Animashaun v. Sufiami,
58 refusal to pay tribute would
amount to a denial of the overlord’s title which will incur forfeiture
59 because the
customary law defines a “landlord as the overlord while the tribute-paying person
remains the servant or tenant”.
60 It appears the Act has not affected this position
56 The people of Modakeke and Ife are another example showing the attitude of the people to the
land despite the Land Use Act. The Modakeke perhaps influenced by the genial intendment of the
Act stopped the payment of Ishakole (tribute) to the Ife people. The Ijaws, Itsekiri and Urhobos,
Aguleri Land Crisis, Tiv – Jukum, etc.
57 Okuojenor v. Sagay [1958] W.R.L.R. 70; Ochoma v. Unosi (1960) 4 E.N.L.R. 107 and Eyamba
v. Holmes (1924) 5 N.L.R. 83.
58 Animashaun v. Sufiami (Unreported) Suit No. LD/1977 Judgement (10-06-1980).
59 Animashaun v. Sufiami (Unreported) Suit No. LD/1977 Judgement (10-06-1980).
60 This quotation from the Sunday Tribune (February 9th, 1986) underscores this fact. It reads:
“Traditional rulers who had before the birth of the Decree been deemed custodians of land in their
domain felt jilted, spited and trimmed by the Decree. During a courtesy call on ex-President Shehu
Shagari (9-09-1982) six traditional rulers registered their opposition to the decree. . . . In a
memorandum presented to the ex-President, the traditional rulers stated that ‘the traditional concept
of land should be held in trust by the living for the dead as the unborn. Thus the trustees are
variously the Oba or the family or even at times, the individual.’ The traditional rulers noted that the
Land Use Act was unnecessary as States of the Federation could legally and compulsorily acquire
land for overriding public purposes with the payment of compensation.”
Soil Governance and Sustainable Land Use System in Nigeria: The Paradox of. . .
171