TENANTS OBLIGATION TO THE GRANTOR

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.
Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - MARTINS LIBRARY

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE