It is important to note that the interest conferred by
customary tenancy is not a precarious one. In other words, the fact that a
customary tenant pays no rent does not make him a tenant at will, who could be
ejected as the grantor’s will. Determination can arise in the following ways:
a) Accomplishment
of The Purpose of The Grant: Customary tenancy comes to an end when the purpose
for which the grant was made is accomplished. Hence, if the tenancy is for a
farming season, then the purpose of the grant is usually accomplished at the
end of the harvest and thereupon the tenancy is determined.
b) Notice To
Quit: Notice to quit has a rather limited scope as a mode of determining a
tenancy under customary law. It applies only in the case of indefinite
tenancies which are not intended to be of perpetual duration, neither tenancies
for a specific period nor indefinite tenancies of perpetual duration can be
determined by notice. When a tenancy is properly determinable by notice the notice
must be a reasonable one. The reasonableness of notice depends, however, on the
circumstances of each case. If, for example, the land is in crop the notice
must allow sufficient time for the crops to be harvested and removed from the
land.
c) Abandonment:
This is another way a customary tenancy could be determined. If the tenant
abandons the land, its possession reverts to the original owner. It is usually
difficult to determine when abandonment has taken place. Absence from the land
for some time does not necessarily mean abandonment. On the same token, mere
non-user does not necessarily mean abandonment, it must be shown that the
tenant had an intention to abandon the land. Usually circumstances surrounding
each case are considered.
In Baillie V Offion24.the tenant left the land in question due to ill health and
went to another place where upon his house went to ruins. The daughter of one
of the overlords sought to build a house on the land, but was opposed by the
tenant. It was argued that the tenant had abandoned the land and that before
resuming possession he had to obtain permission of the overlords. The court
held that the tenant had not abandoned the land because there was no intention
on his part to do so.
In
Annan V Bin25, K, a tenant was permitted by the landowners to build a
house on the land, K went to Liberia and the house fell into ruins. There years
later, the appellant was permitted by K’s mother to build another house on the
land. When the building was completed the appellant started a shop therein and
put the respondent in charge. Soon disagreement between them arose and the
appellant threw out the respondent who in meantime obtained permission from the
landowners to be on the land. The court held that when the house built by K
fell into ruins the land reverted to the owners.
The tenant has no right to hand the land over to another
person without the permission of the owners. Therefore the appellant has no
right to be on the land under Fanti customary law.
Similarly
in Ezeilo V Obi26 the Roman Catholic Mission were the customary tenants of a
certain area of land upon which they had build a church and school. Later they
were granted a new site where they erected a new school and church, thereafter
discontinuing the use of the old church and school for eight to ten years,
which then fell into ruins. The owners then granted the site to the Church
Missionary Society who immediately began to erect their own church. There was
evidence that R.C.M never at any time intended to abandon the land. They were
in fact collecting money to develop it, and had throughout the period of eight
to ten years continued to use the burial ground on the land. The court held
that there had been no abandonment.
It
had been held that a sale of the land by the tenant amounts to abandonment.
This is quite reasonable, since a sale is a clean manifestation of the tenant’s
intention to terminate his whole interest in the land. Three other events which
will operate to determine a customary tenancy viz: merger of the tenancy in the
reversion (i.e. where a customary tenant purchase the reversion, surrender of
the tenancy by the tenant; and the extinction of the tenant’s family, [1][1]
example was Oshodi v
Olote27”
which is perhaps the only reported case in which the family of the tenant had
because extinct.