OJOMU V. AJAO

• Pages: 416-431

OJOMU V. AJAO



416

OJOMU V. AJAO

5

MOHAMMED OJOMU

V

10 SALAWU AJAO

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

SOWEMIMO,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

15



OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

16th September, 1983

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 4/1983

20



Customary Law (Yoruba) - Customary tenancy, incidents of - Tenant's right even

against purchaser of radical title, to possession in perpetuity, subject to

non forfeiture for misbehaviour.

Trespass - Plaintiff in possession as customary tenant - Demise of same land to

25



2nd defendant by grantor family while plaintiffs customary tenancy still

subsisting - Consequential demolition of plaintiffs uncompleted building -

Plaintiffs right to damages for trespass and injunction - Appointment - Special

damages wrongly awarded against both defendants instead of 1st defendant

alone.

30

ISSUES:

1.

What are the rights and duties of a customary tenant?

2.

What is the effect of a lease of land by deed on a subsisting customary tenancy

on the same parcel of land, where both interests were granted by the same

35



grantor family?

3.

Whether a grantee can be held liable in damages for trespass committed by

the grantor of the land before the grantee was put into possession.

FACTS

The appellant purchased land from the Ojora family. The respondent had pur-

40



chased the same land 15 years earlier, from another faction of the Ojora Chief-

taincy family in 1961. The respondent had a customary title to remain on the land

on payment of a yearly rent, and had started constructing a building thereon but

had not finished it.

On purchase of title to the same land by the appellant, a member of the Ojora

45



Chieftaincy family (the 1st defendant) proceeded to demolish the building on it,

and put the appellant in possession. The appellant erected his own building on

the land.

The respondent instituted proceedings in the High Court for damages for tres-

pass, and an injunction against the defendants. He obtained judgment. The ap-

50



pellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the High Court judgment.

The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court contending that he could

not be held liable for trespass as he had no previous knowledge of the respond-

ent's interest. He contended that he should not be made to pay damages for the

417



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1983] N.S.C.C.

actions of another, and he sought to know the nature of his own interest in the light

of the trespass.

HELD:

1.

A customary tenant has an obligation to (1) pay his rents (2) be of good

behaviour and (3) at all times acknowledge the title of the landlord. Once he is



5

fulfilling these conditions, he may not be removed from the land, especially

after making substantial improvements, even where the landlord sells the land

to another landlord. The possession of the good - behaving customary tenant

is protected by law and dispossession is not allowed, until forfeited.

2.

The right of possession as a customary tenant held by the respondent was not



10

defeasible by the subsequent lease of the land by deed, by the Ojora Chieftaincy

family, or a faction thereof, to the appellant.

3.

That the appellant should be absolved from responsibility for the demolition of

the respondent's building, since it was done at the order of the 1st defendant

only, before the 2nd defendant/appellant came into possession of the land.



15

Thus, his appeal against the award of special damages for the demolition is

allowed, but the award of general damages still stands against him.

4.

That having established the respondent's possession, any disturbance of the

land is without his consent an act of trespass. The Ojora family had no title to

pass to the appellant. Having inspected the property before purchase and



20

development the appellant is deemed to have had notice of the respondents'

interest, thus money spent by him on the property is not recoverable from the

respondent.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT.



25

1.

Orasanmi v. ldowu

(1959) 4 F.S.C. 40.

2.

Caulcrick v. Harding

(1926) 7 N.L.R. 48.

3.

Oloto

v.

Dawuda

1 N.L.R. 57.

4.

ldewu lnasa v. Sakariyawo Oshodi

10 N.L.R. 4, 6.

5.

Abiodun v. Erinmilokun

(196) 1 All N.L.R. 294.



30

6.

Aderonmu Okiji v. Adejobi

(960) 5 F.S.C. 44, 47- 48.

7.

Ramsden v. Dyson

(1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129, 140 - 141.

8.

0. Solomon & Ors. v. A.R. Mogaji & Ors.

(1981) 11.S.C. 1, 45.

9.

Ogunbambi v. Abowaba

(1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222.

10.Ejeanalonye & Ors. v. Omabuike & Ors.

(1974)

1

All N.L.R. 298.



35

11.

Umofia v. Ndem

(1973) 12S.C. 69.

12.Aghenghen & Ors. v. Waghoreghor & Ors.

(1974) 1 S.C. 1.

13.Asan Taiwo & Ors. v. Alamo Akinwumi & Ors.

(1975) 4 S.C. 143, 183-4.

14.Lasisi & Anor. v. Tubi & Anor

(1974) 12 S.C. 71, 74.

15.Etowa Enang v. Fidelis Adu

(1981) 11-12 S.C. 25.



40

16.

Victor Woluchem & Ors. v. Simon Gudi & Ors.

(1981) 5 S.C. 319, 326 - 330.

17.Kabiwu v. Lawal

(1965) 1 All N.L.R. 329, 335.

Mr. H.A. Lardner S.A.N., S.E. Obi

for Appellant.

Mr. M.A. Olajumoke

for Respondent.



45

ANIAGOLU, J.S.C.

(Delivering the Judgment of the Court): This is another of

those cases in which a land-owning family in Lagos sells the same land to several

purchasers leaving them to fight the issues in court as to the priorities of their

competing interests in the purchased land.



50

The land involved in this appeal is situate at 8, lya Ojo Street, Ajegunle Apapa,

and was the subject of a survey, the plan of which was tendered before the trial

court as

exhibit

C.