LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Trespass – Possession as Basis for Action
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Once it can be shown that a person is in exclusive possession of land, they can bring an action for damages for trespass against any other person, other than the true owner or a person with better title, in respect of any interference with their possession; in an action for trespass, a defendant may not set up a jus tertii (title in a third party)—they may set up title in themselves or that they acted on authority of the real owner; an original trespasser in exclusive possession can maintain an action in trespass against a later trespasser whose possession would be adverse to that of the original trespasser.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Once it can be shown, as it was in this case, that a person is in exclusive possession of land, he can bring an action for damages for trespass against any other person, other than the true owner or a person with better title, in respect of any interference with his possession. See Amakor v. Ohiefuna (1974) 3 S.C. 67. Assuming that the appellant was right in their contention that the land had reverted, that would not have been a good defence to the claim for damages for trespass as the reversion would not have been to the appellants but to the grantor, the Oba of Benin, a third party. In an action for damages for trespass, a defendant may not set up a jus tertii. He may set up a title in himself, or that he acted on the authority of the real owner. See Amakor's case, supra. So, even if the land in dispute had reverted to the grantor that would not have helped the appellants' position because an original trespasser, as against everyone but the true owner can, if he is in exclusive possession of the land in dispute, maintain an action in trespass against a later trespasser whose possession would clearly be adverse to that of the original trespasser. See Ayinde v. Salawu, (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.109) 297."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces and expands Principle 282. Trespass protects possessory rights: Standing to sue: Any person in exclusive possession can sue trespassers, regardless of whether they’re the true owner. Limits: Cannot sue the true owner or persons with superior title. Jus tertii defense barred: Defendants cannot argue title belongs to a third party—they can only claim: (a) title in themselves, or (b) authority from the true owner. This prevents defendants from arguing “neither of us owns it, so you can’t sue me.” Hierarchical protection: Even wrongful possessors (original trespassers) can sue subsequent trespassers whose possession is adverse to theirs. The principle creates possession hierarchy: true owner > lawful possessor > wrongful possessor > subsequent trespasser. Each level can sue the next. This serves: protecting settled possession, preventing self-help (even wrongdoers must use legal process), and ensuring disputes are resolved through lawful means. However, all lose to those with superior title or authority.