GARUBA ABIOYE AND OTHERS v SA'ADU YAKUBU AND OTHERS (SC 169/1987) [1991] NGSC 2 (10 June 1991)

GARUBA ABIOYE AND OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS)

v.

SA'ADU YAKUBU AND OTHERS (DEFENDANTS)

(1991) All N.L.R. 1

Division: Supreme Court of Nigeria

Date of Judgment: 10 June 1991

Case Number: SC 169/1987

Before: Mohammed Bello, Gcon, CJN; Andrews Otutu Obaseki; Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte; Saidu Kawu; Salihu Modibbo Alfa Belgore; Phillip Patrick Nnaemeka-Agu; Olajide Olanrewaju Olatawura, JJSC

ISSUES

Whether customary owners are entitled to a declaration of title to a portion of land against their customary tenants?

Whether Land Use Act 1978 had abolished the rights of customary owners vis-à-vis their customary tenants?

FACTS

The first plaintiff was the village head of Basanyin village, the other plaintiffs were his chiefs. The defendants were customary tenants, who together with their ancestors, had been in occupation of the land in question for approximately sixty years.

The plaintiffs called the disputed land "Gaa Kekere" or "Gaa Oke". Despite this, and without the plaintiffs' consent, the defendants erected on the land three huge signboards depicting a different name and suggesting thereby that the settlement belonged to Irapa village.

This caused the plaintiffs to seek declaratory orders that the land still belonged to them, that the defendants were mere tenants for purposes of grazing and farming, that no alienation by way of a sale or gift had taken place and that the refusal of the defendants to remove the "offensive" signboards constituted an act of nuisance. The plaintiffs further sought an order that the defendants remove the signboards and, finally, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from erecting similar structures in future.

In turn, the defendants counter-claimed. Declarations were sought that the land customarily belonged to them and that the village be known as "Gaa Irapa". Furthermore, injunctions were claimed to restrain the plaintiffs from trespassing and from removing the signboards, as well as damages against the plaintiffs for having trespassed on the land, which, the defendants claimed, belonged to them.

The cardinal issue to decide herein was whether the provisions of the Land Use Act 1978, in particular Sections 1 and 36 thereof, read together with the definition clauses in Section 50, had abolished the rights of customary owners vis-à-vis customary tenants of land for agricultural purposes.

The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in so far as the declarations relating to title were concerned. The Court of Appeal, however, set that judgment aside, finding, amongst others, that the customary tenant is in fact the "holder" as defined in Section 50 of the Act.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, and with all seven judges unanimous in their findings, the plaintiffs' appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal was allowed.

HELD (Unanimously upholding the appeal)

1.      On the distinction between holder and occupier as used in the Land Use Act

"The essential distinction which could be made between a "holder" and an "occupier" as defined, is that whereas the former is a person entitled in law to a right of occupancy, the latter is not a person so entitled. The legal effect of the distinction is that an "occupier" is any person that is lawfully occupying land under customary law who would at the commencement of the Land Use Act be entitled to a customary right of occupancy. Hence, the fact that the "occupier" is in possession, and the "holder" is not, does not alter the true legal status of the parties". Karibi-Whyte, JSC, page 75.

2.      On the historical meaning of occupier and holder

The occupier and the holder referred to in Section 36 of the Land Use Act, are the customary tenant and the customary owner respectively. Karibi-Whyte, JSC, page 37.

3.      On interpreting the Land Use Act 1978 in respect of expropriation of property

The cardinal rule of interpretation of statutes is established that unless express provision is made in clear and unambiguous language to expropriate the property of a person, the statute should be construed in favour of the person in whom the property had been vested and that it should not be construed to deprive such owner of his property without compensation. Karibi-Whyte, JSC, page 61.

Mansah Eno and RA Sanni and AO Inwang for the Appellants:

Amici Curiae supporting the Appellants

1. S.N.C. Harris-Eze, D.L.C. for Attorney-General of the Federation

2. Dr. Okafor, Attorney-General, Anambra State with Mr Onwugbufor, D.C.L.

3. Mr. Sam. O. Elaiho, Attorney-General, Bendel State with ME Okojie, State Counsel.

4. Mr Baba Maina Gimba, Attorney-General, Borno State with LBJ Ngilari, Solicitor-General, Borno State.

5. Mr N.O. Adigwe, Attorney-General, Imo State with M.M. Akuneme, Esq., DCL, N.I. Onyeukwu, Esq, Senior State Counsel.

6. Mr Bashuwa, Attorney-General, Lagos State.

7. Mr Adisa Adewolu, Attorney-General, Ogun State with GO Shonemi, DCL.

8. Hon. Ogedengbe, Attorney-General, Ondo State with O. Fagbe, DOCL. and A.O. Adebusoye, Senior State Counsel I.

9. Mr Olusegun AA Olajolo, Attorney-General, Oyo State.

10. Mr O. Dada, Solicitor-General, Plateau State.

11. O.C.J. Okocha, Esq., Attorney-General, Rivers State with S.R. Dapaa-Addo, DCL.

12. Chief FRA Williams, C.F.R., SAN and T.E. Williams,

13. Chief Kehinde Sofola, SAN with Miss H. Erumaiavwo.

14. Dr. Mudiaga Odje, O.F.R., SAN with Miss Carol Ajie.

15. Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim, SAN

16. Mr. P.O. Balonwu, SAN with G.M. Nwagbogu.

For Respondents: PAO Olorunnisola

Amici Curiae Supporting the Respondents

1. Mr. Adam O. Onum, Attorney-General, Benue State with D.I. Adulugba, D.C.L.

2. Brigid Ajan Odey, (Mrs.), Attorney-General, Cross River State.

3. Yusufu Aliu, Attorney-General, Gongola State with Y.S. Tukura, Esq., Senior State Counsel II.

4. W.A. Abdulkadir, Esq., Attorney-General, Kaduna State.

5. A.B. Mahmoud, D.P.P., Kano State.

6. Dr. M.B. Oyebanji, Attorney-General, Kwara State with S.O. Otu, Ag. D.C.L.

7. S.B. Umaru, D.D.C.L. for Attorney-General, Niger State.

8. M.B. Audi, Senior State Counsel, Sokoto State.

The following cases were referred to in this judgment:

Nigeria

Adeleke v Adewusi (1961) 1 All NLR 37

Adeshina v Lemonu (1965) 1 All NLR 233

Adigi v Ishola (1978) 2 OYSHC Part 2 204

AESC v Sale Urban DC (1936) 154 LT 379

Aghenghen v Waghoreghor (1974) 1 SC 1

Akagbue v Ogun (1976) 6 SC 63

Akinkuowo v Fatimoju (1965) NMLR 349

Akinloye v Eyiyola (1968) NMLR 92

Aniemeka Emegokwuo v James Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 113

Apampa v The State (1982) 6 SC 47

Attorney-General of Bendel State v Aideyan (1986) 2 NWLR 175

Attorney-General of Bendel State v Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Part 118) 646

Atuyeye v Ashamu (1987) 1 SC 358

Aya v Henshaw (1972) 5 SC 87

Bello v The Diocesan Synod of Lagos (1973) 1 All NLR (Part 1) 247

Bisi Aromolaran v C.M. Waddel FSC 214/1957

Board of Customs v Barau (1982) 10 SC 48

Coker v Jinadu (1958) LLR 77

Deeble v Robinson (1954) 1 QB 77

Din v Federal Attorney-General (1988) 4 NWLR (Part 87) 147

Dina v New Nigerian Newspapers Ltd (1986) 2 NWLR (Part 22) 353

Dokubo v Bob-Manuel (1967) 1 All NLR 113

Dzungwe v Gbishe (1985) (Part 8) 2 NWLR 528

Ejeanalonye & others v Omabuike & others (1974) 1 All NLR (Part 1) 298; 2 SC 33

Ejoh v I.G.P. (1963) 1 All NLR 250

Ekpan v Uyo (1986) 3 NWLR (Part 23) 63

Ekpendu v Erika (1959) 4 FSC 79

Enimil & others v Tuakyi & another (1952) 13 WACA 10

Estate of Soule v Johnson (1974) 12 SC 121

Ifezue v Mbadugha (1984) NSCC 314

Kasali v Lawal (1986) 3 NWLR (Part 28) 305

Kasusu Akanni Buraimoh v Rebecca Ayinke Bamghose (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 109) 352

Ladipo Agidiaba v Tijiani Abangbe & another (1980) 4 OYSHC 788

Lawal v GB Ollivant (1972) 2 SC 124

Lawani v Tadeyo (1944) 10 WACA 37

LSDPC v Foreign Finance Corp. (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 50) 413

Martin Estates Co Ltd v Watt & Hunter (1925) N

Mogaji & others v Cadbury Fry Export Ltd (1972) 2 SC 97

Nafiu Rabiu v Kano State (1981) 8-11 SC 130

Nigerian Self Drinks Ltd v A-G. Lagos State (1987) 2 NWLR 444

Nkwocha v Governor, Anambra State (1984) 1 SCNLR 634

Nsirem v Nwakerendu 15 WACA 13

Nwogu v Njoku (1990) 3 NWLR (Part 140) 570

Obikoya v Governor Lagos State (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 50) 385

Ogbakumanwu v Chiabolo 19 NLR 107

Ogunleye v Oni (1990) 4 NWLR (Part 135) 745

Ogunola & others v Eiyekole & others (1990) 4 NWLR (Part 146) 632

Ojomo v Ajao (1983) 9 SC 22

Olowu v Olowu (1985) 3 NWLR (Part 13) 372

Olu of Warri v Esi (1958) 3 FSC 94

Oni v Arimoro (1973) 3 SC 63

Oniah v Onyia (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 99) 514

Onwuka v Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 96) 182

Osawaru v Ezeiruka (1978) 6-7 SC 135

Osho v Phillips (1972) 4 SC 259

Oshodi v Dakolo (1930) 9 NLR 13

Peenok Investment Ltd v Hotel Presidential (1982) NSCC 477

Ransome Kuti v Attorney-General of the Federation 1985 (Part 6) 2 NWLR 211

Salami v Oke (1987) 4 NWLR (Part 63 S.C.I) 1

Salati v Shehu (1986) 1 NWLR (Part 15) 198

Savannah Bank v Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Part 97) 305; (1987) 2 NWLR (Part 57) 421

Taiwo & others v Akinwumi (1975) 6 SC 63

Udeze v Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR 141

Uyovbaria v Kporoaro (1966) 1 All NLR 86

Uyovwukerhi v Afonughe (1976) 5 SC 85

Westminister Bank Ltd v Beverley Borough Council (1968) 3 WLR 671

Foreign

Amodu Tijani v Secretary Southern Nigeria (1921) 2 AC 390

Altrincham Electric Supply Limited v Sale Urban District Council 154 LT 379/388

Attorney-General v Brown (1920) 1 KTS 773

Belfast Corporation v OD Cars, Ltd (1960) AC 490

Canada Sugar Refining Co v R (1898) AC 741

Cuno, In Re (1889) 43

Ealing London Borough v Race Relations Board (1972) AC 342/360

Eastman Photographic Materials Co v Comptroller-General of Patents (1898) AC 571

Edinburgh Street Transways v Torbain (1877) 3 AC 58

George Wimpey & Co Ltd v BOAC (1955) AC 169

Habib v LEDB (1958) 3 FSC 109

Hough v Windus (1884) 12 QBD 224

Mayfair Property Co, Re (1898) Ch 28

Newcastle City Council v Royal Newcastle Hospital (1959) 1 All ER 734

Paterson v Gas Light & Coto Co (1896) 2 Ch 476

R v Ditcheat (1829) B & C 176

River Wear Commissioners v Adamson (1877) 2 AC 743

Rolfe v Flower, Salting & Co (1866) LR 1 PC 27

Walsh v Secretary of State for India (1863) 10 HLC

Whittington v Corder (1852) LTOS 175

The following statutes were referred to in this judgment:

Nigeria

Constitution 1979: S 274

Land Use Act, 1978: Ss 1(a), 2(2), 3, 5(1), 5(2); 6, 6(1), 6(3), 6 (5), 6 (6), 6(7), 9(1)(b), 18(3), 24(a), 24(b), 28, 29(1), 29(2), 29(3), 31, 34(1), 34(2), 34(4), 34(5)(b), 34(6)(b), 36(1), 36(2), 36(3), 36(4), 37, 38, 40, 48, 50

The following books were referred to in this judgment

Crais on Statute Law (7ed) at 121-122

Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 14 paragraphs 904 and 906

Law of Real Property, The, (4ed) R. E. Megarry and HWR Wade, at 139

Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (12ed) at 116

Odger's Construction of Deeds and Statutes