PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The generally accepted view is that despite the established misconduct of the customary tenant forfeiture is not as of course or automatic; hence the overlord must take the necessary steps to enforce their right to forfeiture for the misconduct in the courts.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Makinde & Ors v. Akinwale & Ors (2000) NLC-2231994(SC) at pp. 25–26; Paras. E–A.
"the generally accepted view is that despite the established misconduct of the customary tenant forfeiture is not as of course or automatic... Hence the overlord must take the necessary steps to enforce his right to forfeiture for the misconduct in the Courts."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

This qualifies Principle 587. Despite tenant’s misconduct justifying forfeiture: forfeiture doesn’t occur automatically, overlord must take action, and judicial process is required. “Not as of course or automatic” means: misconduct alone doesn’t terminate tenancy, overlord cannot simply declare forfeiture, and formal enforcement required. Overlord must: (1) Take necessary steps—initiate proceedings, claim forfeiture; (2) Enforce in courts—judicial determination required, not self-help. This serves: preventing extrajudicial termination, ensuring due process, and requiring judicial oversight. Why not automatic: Protects tenants from: summary eviction, overlord overreach, and loss of possession without hearing. Courts must: determine if misconduct occurred, assess if it justifies forfeiture, and order forfeiture if appropriate. Overlord cannot: simply evict tenant, seize possession, or declare tenancy terminated—must obtain court order. This balances: overlord’s right to forfeit for misconduct against tenant’s right to judicial determination. Procedure: Overlord brings action, proves misconduct, establishes grounds for forfeiture, and obtains judicial declaration/order. Only then does forfeiture take effect. This prevents self-help while maintaining forfeiture as remedy for tenant misconduct. The principle ensures: rule of law applies to customary tenancy termination, judicial process required, and tenants protected from extrajudicial dispossession.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE