SAKARIYAWO OSHODI Vs. MORIAMO DAKOLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In May 1927 the Governor of the Colony of Nigeria gave notice that he intended to acquire for public purposes a compound known as Alfa Iwo Court, situated at Epetedo, in Lagos. This he was empowered to do under the Public Lands Acquisition Ordinance. Following upon that, summonses were taken out to determine the persons to whom the compensation money, which was payable on the acquisition by the Government, should be paid. Alfa Iwo Court consists of a set of houses set round an internal court, which forms the access to them. The claimants are, on the one hand, Oshodi, who is the head of the family of Oshodi and who claimed it as paramount chief; and on the other the various occupants of the houses. The general character of the title of natives to lands in Lagos was examined by the Board in the case of Amodu Tijani V/s. Secretary, S. Nigeria, [1921] 2 AC 399. What was laid down in that case was that the cession of the territory of Lagos by the King of Lagos to the British Crown in 1861 did not affect the character of the private native rights. That case had to do with community lands held under the White Cap Chiefs; but the general principle was held to apply to other lands not held by White Cap Chiefs in the subsequent case of Sunmonu V/s. Disu Raphael, [1927] AC 881, where this was expressly stated at p. 84. In general terms what the law comes to is this: the paramount chief is owner of the lands, but he is not owner in the sense in which owner is understood in this country. He has no fee simple, but only a usufructuary title. He may have some individual lands which he occupies himself, but as regards other lands they are occupied for his household, i. e., before the abolition of slavery, for his slaves. These various occupiers have the right to remain and to transmit their holdings to their off-spring, but in the event of the family of an occupier failing and being extinct, the chief has a right of reversion.

(2.) In the lower Court each of the two parties, who for convenience sake were called plaintiff and defendants, the chief being plaintiff and the occupants as a body the defendants, claimed the whole of the compensation money. The lower Court decided in favour of the defendants and awarded to them the whole money. On appeal the chief modified his attitude, He no longer claimed the whole, but he said he was entitled to a share. This claim he based on two separate grounds. First, he said he was entitled to the money so far as it represented the value of the courtyard, because he alleged that the courtyard did not, so to speak, fall within the title of the various houses. Secondly, he said that he was entitled to something in virtue of his right to reversion.

(3.) The Supreme Court of Nigeria decided against him. From that judgment appeal has been taken to His Majesty in Council, and before this Board the plaintiff has maintained the same attitude as he did before the Supreme Court.