LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Customary Tenancy – Effect of Finding of Tenancy – No Inference of Title from Possession
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The result of the cases is that no inference favourable to the title which the defendants claim in the land by their cross-action can be drawn from the fact of possession, once the finding is made and upheld that they were customary tenants. It is also evident from the cases, some of which I have mentioned in this judgment, that unless the defendants commit acts of misconduct, whereby they would incur forfeiture of their respective tenancies, the defendants are entitled to remain in occupation of the land severally granted to their ancestors.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Chikere & Ors v. Okegbe & Ors (2000) NLC-261995(SC) at p. 7; Paras A–B.
"The result of the cases is that no inference favourable to the title which the defendants claim in the land by their cross-action can be drawn from the fact of possession, once the finding is made and upheld that they were customary tenants. It is also evident from the cases, some of which I have mentioned in this judgment, that unless the defendants commit acts of misconduct, whereby they would incur forfeiture of their respective tenancies, the defendants are entitled to remain in occupation of the land severally granted to their ancestors."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Once a customary tenancy is established, no inference of title can be drawn from the tenant’s possession. Possession is consistent with the tenancy, not with ownership. Tenants remain entitled to occupy unless they commit acts of misconduct warranting forfeiture. Their possession cannot ripen into title against the overlord. This prevents customary tenants from converting their subordinate interest into ownership through prolonged possession. The overlord’s title remains superior, and the tenant cannot claim adverse possession. Forfeiture requires positive acts inconsistent with tenancy, not mere possession.