Land Law (544)
"There is evidence that the land in Opebi village was acquired by the Lagos State Government by Government Notice 140 Public Acquisition Law Chapter 105 published in Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No. 11 Vol. 7 of 16th April 1974.
"It is settled that there are five ways in which the ownership of land can be proved - see Idundun v. Okumagba, (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227 at pp.246-250; Piaro v. Tenalo & Anor. (1976) 1 F.N.R. 229 at p.234 Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd., (1985) 2 N.W. L. R. 393 at p.431. One of such ways is by the production of authenticated documents." Per UWAIS, J.S.C (P. 17, paras. B-D) I. P. D. ABAYE V. IKEM UCHE OFILI & ANOR.(1986) LPELR-21(SC)
"The Locus Classicus of the principle has been WALSH v. LONSDALE (1882)21 Ch. D.9 in which it was decided that a person occupying under an executory agreement for a lease is no more a tenant from year to year at Law by the payment of rent, but is to be treated as if he was, in fact, holding under the lease already executed and, therefore, he was subject to the right of distress as if the lease had been already granted. "PER ANIAGOLU, J.S.C.(P.40, paras.B-D) MR. SALAMI AFOLABI & ORS. V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS.(1985) LPELR-196(SC)
"In the first place, it has been stressed times without number that it would be wrong to assume that all a person who resorts to a grant as a method of proof of his title to land needs do is simply to produce his deed of title and rest his case thereon.
"The law is also trite that there are five ways of establishing title to land or as in this case the property in dispute.
"In attempting to resolve these issues let me restate the time honoured and established legal principle as was decided in the celebrated case of Kodilinye v. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337 - 338 per Webber, CJ; which has been followed in a litany of cases by the apex Court and this Court on claims for declaration of title to land that:
"It is a mis-statement of law to say that the Land Use Act abolished the remedies or reliefs of forfeiture and injunction. Forfeiture is available whenever a tenant disputes the title the remedies or reliefs of forfeiture and injunction. Forfeiture is available whenever a tenant disputes the title of the overlord or landlord or alienates without the landlord's consent the whole or part of the parcel of land let out to him by the landlord under customary law."PER BELLO, C.J.N. (P. 60, paras. C-E) GARUBA ABIOYE & ORS. V. SA'ADU YAKUBU & ORS(1991) LPELR-43(SC)
"The statement that occupation by a customary tenant is no occupation by the landlord is, in my view, too wide and is certainly in disregard to the relationship between customary landlord and customary tenant. Although it has been said that a customary tenant who keeps the conditions imposed by the tenancy agreement can enjoy his tenancy in perpetuity, he is in fact a tenant from year to year subject to the payment of rent or tribute. As in English Common Law when: a tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord under customary law, a customary tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord." PER OBASEKI, J.S.C. (P.68, paras. A-C) GARUBA ABIOYE & ORS. V. SA'ADU YAKUBU & ORS(1991) LPELR-43(SC)
"A person with a customary right of occupancy is entitled to use the land in accordance with customary law. A customary right of occupancy pre-dates the Land Use Act and is intimately linked with the custom of the people of the area. It is a creation of customary law and the fact that it can now be granted by the local government has not taken it out of the realm of customary law.
"Statutory rights of occupancy are granted by the Governor (see section 5(1) & (2) and customary right' of occupancy by the Local Government in whose area the land situates (see section 6(1). These rights of occupancy bear resemblance to leasehold interests. They can be assigned. They can be mortgaged and they can be under-let or sublet.