Topic 2 - History Flashcards
Inositol v AG Southern Province of Nigeria
The Court compensated the Plaintiff (Onisiwo) for land which had been previously acquired. Speed C.J. held that the only right or title of the chief was: merely a seigneurial right giving the holder the ordinary rights of control and management of the land, in accordance with the well-known principles of native law and custom, including the rights to receive payment of the nominal rent or tribute payable by the occupiers and that compensation should be calculated on that basis and not on the basis of absolute ownership of the land
Alade v Aborishade
the Supreme Court established that
family property could not be transferred by a single member of the family alone. Instead,
regardless of the terms used, transfer of family property would only be valid if the family head
and principal members agree to such transfer. They noted:
“We have expressed the view that if a family is the absolute owner of land, the totality
of the family interest in the land may be transferred if the head and all members of the
family agree. Judges have used different epithets to describe this interest: fee simple; fee
simple absolute; absolute title; absolute ownership…”
Oshodi v Balogun
Privy Council
observed as follows:
“In the olden days it is probable that family lands were never alienated; but since the
arrival of Europeans in Lagos many years ago, a custom has grown up of permitting
alienation of family land with the general consent of the family and a large number of
premises on which substantial buildings have been erected for purposes of trade or
permanent occupation have been so acquired…. Their lordships see no reason for
doubting that the title so acquired by these purchasers was an absolute one and that no
reversion in hand of the chief was retained”.
Nelson v Nelson
Nelson family decided to use money paid by
government as compensation for acquisition of family property to another parcel of land. The
conveyance was done in favour of the family head in English form. The family head thereafter
sold the land to a third party. In an action to set aside the sale, the court held that the land is
family property notwithstanding the form in which it was conveyed.
