Circumstances That Warrant the Grant of an Order of Forfeiture Against a Customary Tenant

CASE TITLE:  UDALE v. AGBONIKA & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62187(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 2ND FEBRUARY, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT: 

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on customary tenancy.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Abuja Division coram: Mohammed Lawal Garba, Paul Adamu Galumje, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JJCA, delivered on the 18th day of October, 2010.

This appeal relates to forfeiture of customary tenancy involving the 1st Respondent, who claims ancestral rights to the land, and the 2nd Respondent, the Attah Igala. The 1st Respondent alleges that their ancestors were the original settlers and paid tributes directly to the 2nd Respondent. However, a feud arises when the 2nd Respondent accuses the 1st Respondent’s family of breaching terms of customary tenancy.

Later, the 2nd Respondent wrote a letter dated March 22, 2004 to James Odaudu, a member of the 1st Respondent’s family, claiming to terminate the family’s customary tenancy over Okpe Adige following a report of a panel set up by the 2nd Respondent to investigate the dispute between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent aggrieved about his removal as the customary tenant of Okpe Adige, initiated this suit at the trial Court claiming that his family did not breach any of the terms of customary tenancy to warrant their removal. The Appellant in this appeal, being the 2nd Defendant at the trial Court filed a counter claim against the 1st Respondent, wherein he sought an order of forfeiture against the 1st Respondent.

The trial High Court in delivering its judgment in favour of the Appellant found that the constant physical harassment and challenge of the Appellant’s ownership title by the 1st Respondent were acts that amounted to gross misconduct and placed the 1st Respondent at risk of losing their status as customary tenants. The trial Court further held that the 1st Respondent failed to prove their case on the preponderance of evidence required of them to entitle them to any reliefs claimed. The trial Judge delivered judgment in favour of the Appellant and ordered the 1st Respondent to forfeit the customary tenancy of the Okpe Adige land.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which unanimously upheld the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. Dissatisfied, the Appellant who was 2nd Respondent at the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

“1. Whether the trial Court erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it failed to make any pronouncement on the inconsistency of Regulations 126 and 127 of the Nigeria Police Regulations with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Right but held that Regulation 127 of the Nigeria Police Regulations cannot be invalidated as it is not in violation of the interest of public order or morality.

2. Whether the trial Court erred in law when it held that a grant of the reliefs of the Appellant will lower the moral and professional standard of the Force as the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria do not provide any protection for pregnant unmarried police officers and the Appellant’s interpretation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is to promote absurdity or mislead the public.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• CUSTOMARY LAW- CUSTOMARY TENANCY: Nature of a customary tenancy and acts upon which a customary tenancy may be forfeited
• CUSTOMARY LAW- CUSTOMARY TENANCY: Circumstance(s) that warrant the grant of an order of forfeiture against a customary tenant
• CUSTOMARY LAW- CUSTOMARY TENANCY: Features/nature of customary tenancy
• CUSTOMARY LAW- CUSTOMARY TENANCY: Principles of law with respect to customary tenancy
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- ORDER OF FORFEITURE: When an order of forfeiture will not be made
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- CONSISTENCY IN PRESENTATION OF A CASE: Whether a party can maintain on appeal, a case different from that which was presented at the lower Court

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol