LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CUSTOMARY LAW – Customary Tenancy – Ishakole (Tribute) – Not Essential to Existence of Tenancy
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Ishakole, the tribute paid to overlord by tenants put on land in Yoruba Native Law and Custom varies from locality to locality; even there can be variations among the same ethnic group; a traditional tenancy can exist without Ishakole, in some cases.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Ishakole, the tribute paid to overlord by tenants put on land in Yoruba Native Law and Custom varies from locality to locality; even there can be variations among the same ethic group... a traditional tenancy can exist without Ishakole, in some cases."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces Principle 586. Ishakole (tribute/rent in Yoruba customary law) is not essential to tenancy existence. Variations: Ishakole varies: by locality (different areas have different practices), even within ethnic groups (same Yoruba communities differ), and is not uniform requirement. Key principle: Traditional/customary tenancy can exist without ishakole—tribute payment is not definitional element of tenancy. This serves: recognizing customary law flexibility, accommodating local variations, and not imposing uniform requirements across diverse customs. Why tribute not essential: Tenancy is defined by: overlord-tenant relationship (superior-subordinate title), permitted possession (not ownership), and continuing occupation with overlord’s acceptance—not by tribute payment. Tribute may be: customary in many areas, evidence of tenancy, or term of particular tenancy—but not universal requirement. “In some cases” means: context-dependent, some localities/families don’t require tribute, and absence doesn’t negate tenancy. Implications: Courts cannot: assume tribute required, find no tenancy because no tribute, or ignore other tenancy indicators. Must assess: actual relationship between parties, terms of their arrangement (express or implied), and local custom. This prevents: rigid formalism, denying tenancy protection to non-tribute-paying occupiers, and ignoring relationship substance. The principle recognizes customary law’s diversity and flexibility—tenancy exists from relationship nature, not necessarily tribute payment.