EZEOKAFOR V. OTALUKA

• Pages: 234-237

234



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

As to forfeiture, there can be no doubt that the defendant assigned portions of

the land of which he was customary tenant without the consent of his customary

landlord. It was equally clear that he challenged the title of his landlord, and him-

self laid claim !o the land. These were acts which, on the evidence at the trial,

rendered the defendant's interest in the land liable to forfeiture. There is no sug-



5

gestion that the learned trial Judge in declaring the defendant's interest in the land

forfeit had not exercised his discretion judicially or had exercised it on wrong prin-

ciples.

For these reasons this appeal is dismissed.

The judgment of the High Court of Western Nigeria in suit HK/60/60 between



10

Salawu Lawani for himself and on behalf of the (tire family and Jimoh Adeniyi is

affirmed.

The plaintiff respondent will have the costs of the appeal assessed at thirty five

guineas.

Bairamian J.S.C.

I concur.



15

Ajegbo J.S.C.

I concur.

Appeal dismissed.

20

EZEOKAFOR V. OTALUKA

EZENWANKWO EZEOKAFOR

V

EBENEZER OTALUKA

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

ONYEAMA,



J.S.C.

AJEGBO,



J.S.C.

30th October, 1964

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 214/1963

25

30

Land Law - Declaration of title, - Injunction - Trespass - Kola tenancy - Action



35

for trespass - Purchase of the land by second agreement contrary to the first

- Breach of covenants - Plaintiff entitled to bring action for forfeiture initially

and not for declaration - Payment of monies due - Appeal allowed.

ISSUE:



40

1.

What is the proper procedure in recovering land under a kola tenancy?

FACTS:

The appellant had brought an action to recover possession of his family land

and a declaration of title. He also wanted damages for trespass and a perpetual

injunction. The land in dispute had been rented to the defendant under a Kola ten-



45

ancy and later the defendant made another agreement whereby he bought the land

from one Ilobolo. In the judgment given in the action the plaintiff was declared

owner of the lands by virtue of the earlier Kola tenancy.

Later, the plaintiff purported to eject the defendant for various breaches, like

non payment of rent and derogation from grant. The defendant refused saying he



50

did not hold any tenancy of the plaintiff. He refused to give up possession des-

pite the fact that Total Oil company had expressed interest in the land and de-

posited some money.

The High Court gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.