LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CUSTOMARY LAW — Customary Tenancy — Forfeiture — Acts constituting misbehaviour warranting forfeiture of customary tenancy
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Forfeiture is the usual mode of determining a customary tenancy. The real basis of misconduct rendering the tenancy liable to forfeiture is the challenge to the title of the overlord, including alienation of part of the land under claim of ownership, refusal to pay tribute, or direct denial of the overlord's title.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Okpala & Ors v. Okpu & Ors (2003) NLC-1211997(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras A–D.
"It is well settled that forfeiture is the usual mode of determining a customary tenancy. The real basis of misconduct or misbehaviour which renders the tenancy liable to forfeiture is the challenge to the title of the overlord. This may be by alienation of part of the land, under claim of ownership, refusal to pay the tribute due or indeed, direct denial of overlord's title by setting up a rival title in the customary tenant himself..."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Forfeiture is the remedy for a customary tenant’s misconduct. The key is challenging the overlord’s title. The principle applies to customary land tenure. Acts of alienation or denial of title constitute misconduct. The rule protects the overlord’s reversionary interest. The court will order forfeiture upon proof of such acts. The principle is well-established.