The following are the obligations of the tenant to the grantor:
i) Not to Deny the Grantor’s Title: This
is the most important obligation of the tenant to the grantor and is intended
for the protection of the grantor’s reversionary interest in the land. This is
more so where the grant is perpetual in nature and is gratuitous. Since in this
case, it will have the semblance of ownership. So many fraudulent tenants can
capitalize on this to deny the overlord his title. In this regard see the case
of Bongay v Macaully17. In that case the defendant came to the protectorate of
Siera Leone from the Colony. He was granted access to some parcel of land to
cultivate by the Paramount Chief of Bo. Later, the defendant granted leases of
part of the land
to non-natives, contrary to the terms of the grant. Further,
he claimed that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and that the land
was given to him by the Government. The plaintiff’s action for forfeiture of
the ground that the grantee had denied the grantor’s title succeeded.
For an
action for forfeiture to succeed, it must be shown that the defendant willful
made the claim, that is, with the knowledge that he is, in fact not the owner
of the land. Hence, there must be an intention on the part of the tenant to
deny the grantor his title and the circumstances in which the statement was
made in a relevant factor in determining whether such statement amounted to a
denial of title.
In Ashogbon V Oduian18 an angry answer of an old man exasperated by cross
examination in the course of unfounded litigation brought against his son
[1][1] for ejected from land occupied by the family was held not
to amount to a denial of title in the circumstanced.
ii) Not to Alienate Without the Grantor’s
Consent: The tenant must not alienate his interest without the grantor’s
consent. The reason for this is that such act could constitute a threat to the
grantors title. Hence any alienation, whether by way of sale assignment, gift
or mortgage is void in Onisiwo v Fagbenro,
Chief Onisiow allowed one of his domestics servants, Kawure, to occupy the
land in dispute. The defendants are the defendants of the said Kawure. They
granted a lease of the said
property for a term of 50 years, renewal of 25 years without
the consent of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed that because of defendants
had leased the land without consent they claimed absolute ownership of the land
and consequently forfeited the land. The court held in favour of the
plaintiffs.
iii) Tenant’s Obligation Not To Use: The
Land for a Different Purpose:
The tenant
is obligated not to use the land for a purpose different from that for which
the grant was made. In
Alege v. Ogundipl20 the plaintiff sought for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from constructing a public highway on the plaintiff’s farm land in
breach of the terms of the defendant’s occupation under customary tenure. It [1]was held that the use of the farmland for any purpose other
than farming was in breach of the defendant’s terms of tenancy by customary law
and that the appropriate remedy was by way of forfeiture for misbehaviour not
by way of injunction. The action therefore, failed for misconception.
Also, in Akwriowo Owo v Anwo20, land which was granted to customary tenants for farming
was used by some of them for building houses. The plaintiffs claimed damages
for trespass instead of a forfeiture. Their action for trespass failed because
the tenancy was still subsisting. It appears that the court would have been
prepared to grant forfeiture in favour of the overlords has it been asked for
by the plaintiff.
The case of
Agwu V Ogoke22 is highly illustrative. Here, a grantor sought an
injunction to restrain his customary tenant from putting up a concrete building
contending that the tenancy permitted only the building of thatched mud houses.
It was held that the grantor’s interest in the land was not jeopardized by the
creation of a concrete house and that whatever damage he had suffered can be
compensated by damages.
iv) Tenant’s
Obligation to Pay Rent Tribute
Payment of
rent or tribute plays on important role in customary tenancy. The primary aim
of this is to acknowledge the grantor’s title to the land. Tribute
[1][2] is usually, made in the form of kola,drink or farm produce,
the intention as already stated, being primarily an acknowledgment of the
grantor’s title.
On the
other hand rent is usually paid in cash and provides an acknowledgement of the
grantor’s title as well as an economic return on the land. This is called
“Ishakole” in Yoruba land. Sometimes, the farmer may pay an agreed sum or in
lieu of cash, give out some quality of crops cultivated on the landowner
annually.
It
has to be pointed out that non-payment of rent or tribute may not vitiate the
existence of customary tenancy in Okuajerory
V Sagay23”
the plaintiff claimed a declaration of title, forfeiture, injunction and
account for rent collected by the defendant. The dependant’s ancestor was
fugitive from the Nanna, Klar and was given
the land in dispute by the plaintiff’s
predecessors for use by himself and his family as a customary tenant without
payment of rent or tribute. The defendant on the other hand claimed that the
land was given outright to his predecessor in grateful acknowledgment to services
he had rendered to the community. The court held that non-payment of rent or
tribute by an occupier is not conclusive as to his ownership of land held under
the customary law and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration.