Month: February 2022

Simply put, family land is a land which belongs to the family as a whole with no member having a separate claim to the property. Family land was defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Olowosago v. Adebanjo (1988) NWLR Part 88 Page 275 at 287 Para A-B per Karibi-Whyte JSC as: “the concept of family property is original to our indigenous society, and is the bedrock of our law of inheritance. It is regarded correctly as the cornerstone of our indigenous land law.“

Furthermore, the management and control of anything relating to the family land are usually vested in the family head and principal members of the family. The questions then become: can the family head sell the family land without recourse to the family members and can any member of the family transfer the ownership in the land to a another party without the consent of the family head and principal members? 

On the first question, there are two legal consequences: one, when a family head misrepresented the family land as his property, such a sale is void abinitio. The rationale behind this is that the property doesn’t belong to him and as such, he can’t transfer ownership. This principle received a judicial blessing in Solomon & Ors v Mogaji & Ors (1982) 11 S.C. 1. 

On the second legal consequence, if the family head sells the family land on behalf of the family, such a sale is voidable, that is, valid until being rejected. In Okonkwo v Okonkwo (1998) LPELR-SC.44/1992, the Court held that: the law is that a sale of family land which the head of the family carries out as such head of family, without some principal members of the family is only voidable but not void at the instance of the non-consenting principal members of the family provided such non-consenting members acted timeously and are not caught by laches.

In addition, in Salako v Dosunmu (1997) 12 NWLR (pt. 531) 56, the Court held that: “it is, therefore, the law that where the head of a family alone sells family land without the consent of the principal members of the family, the sale is not void but prima facie voidable. Such sale can therefore be set aside at the instance of the family”. 

From this, it is evident that a sale of family land by the family head would amount to either void or voidable depending on the capacity in which he represented himself.  On the distinction between voidable and void sale of family land, Oputa JSC (as he then was) in Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989) 3NWLR (Pt.110) Pg 417 at 451 Para. E held as follows: the distinction between a transaction which is void and one which is only voidable is that if a transaction is void, it is in law a nullity, not only bad but incurably bad and nothing can be founded on it, for having no life of its own, it cannot vivify anything. But if a transaction is voidable, it has some life and it remains good until set aside.

Moving on to the second leg of the question, it is pertinent to state that any member of the family does not have the authority, whether in the personal or official capacity, to sell a family land. Such a sale is always void abinitio. On this principle, there have been a plethora of decisions. In Fayehun v Fadoju (2000) 6 NWLR (pt 661) 378  the Supreme Court, per Karibi-Whyte (as he then was) page 404 had this to say: “a sale of family land by a member of the family without the consent of the Chief or head of the family is void ab initio. It is an essential customary element that the head of the family must join in the sale of family property together with the principal members of the family for such transaction to become valid.”

Hence, in a 2019 case of Offodile v Offodile & Ors (2019) LPELR-SC.318/2009, the disputed land comprises the 25 plots which were sold to the 6th defendant/respondent without the consent of the plaintiff/appellant, the only surviving direct son of Chief Ozo Offodile, who is the head of the said Chief Ozo Offodile family in accordance with the Awka native law and custom. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the High Court and Court of Apeal, held that the sale was void abinitio. 

In conclusion, the family head is the caretaker and not the owner of the family property. Bearing in mind that ownership doesn’t reside in him, he cannot transfer such to another party by acting arbitrarily or with selfish interest. Also, any member of the family doesn’t have any right to sell the family property. Thank you for reading. See you next week.

Adulthood is all paying bills. Nothing more; nothing less. As such, after the rigorous journey of getting called to the Bar, legal practitioners have to pay bills. The law must sha chop.

One of the ways by which bills could be paid is through the salary gotten via one’s job. To get clients to pay for services, one needs advertisement either formally or informally. Simply put, advertisement is a marketing strategy that is aimed at bringing public awareness to a product or service. 

In the Nigerian Legal Profession, advertisement is provided for in Rule 39 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007. It is pertinent to note nothing forbids a legal practitioner or a law firm from advertising provided such advertisement doesn’t contradict the provisions of the RPC. In other words, advertisement is allowed to an extent.

Rule 39 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides as follows:

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of this rule a lawyer may engage in any advertising or promotion in connection with his practice of the law, provided:

(a) It is fair and proper in all the circumstances (b) It complies with the provisions of these Rules

(2) A lawyer shall not engage or be involved in any advertising or promotion of his practice of the law which –

(a) Is inaccurate or likely to mislead;

(b) Is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession, or the Administration of Justice, or otherwise, bring the legal profession into disrepute;

(c) Makes comparison with or criticises other lawyers or other professions or professionals;

(d) Includes statement about the quality of the lawyer’s work, the size of success of his practice or his success rate; or

(e) Is so frequent or obstructive as to cause annoyances to those to whom it is directed.

With this in mind, you will now notice why the sign or noticeboard of law firms in Nigeria are of reasonable size, less conspicuous, and contain sober colours. It would be contrary to the law for any law firm to use a big signpost or make use of the billboard to announce its services. See Rule 41 of the RPC.

In conclusion, the rule against the improper attraction of business is aimed to protect the dignity of the legal profession and prevent the unhealthy competition that might arise in the course of superiority among legal practitioners and law firms in Nigeria. 

Thank you for reading. See you next week.

The concept of lion’s share was what I was well acquainted with while growing up. House chores were usually chunked out to me and my siblings. And the rule then at home was that the quantity of your food depends on how much you work. This rule also extends to the allotment of punishment at home. 

While the concept of the lion’s share is well enshrined in most social spaces, the same doesn’t apply in an allotment of punishment in Criminal law provided there was a common intention to commit a crime.

In Adio v State (1986) NWLR (pt.24) 581, the Court defined common intention as one which will make the act of one accused the act of the other if the offence committed is in furtherance of the prosecution of their unlawful common purpose. Section 8 of the Criminal Code

The principle of law as held in a plethora of cases such as Alarape v State (201) 2 SC 164 Mohammed v State (1980) 3-4 SC 56 is that in a concerted attack to prosecute an unlawful purpose, it is not the law to look for the person who struck the lethal blow. Everyone who partakes in the attack is equally guilty of the crime committed during prosecution of the unlawful purpose.

In other words, where common intention is established, a fatal blow or gunshot, though given by any of the parties, is deemed in the eyes of the law to have been given by all those present and participating. The person who actually delivered the fatal blow is, in that case, no more than the hand by which others also struck. 

Putting it in context, if Ade, Bisi, and Yinka committed the offence of armed robbery and it was Yinka who drove the car, while Bisi and Ade were the ones who shot the gun and took the money. The law will consider the trio as guilty and given the same punishment. It’s no defence to say Yinka had lesser participation.

Hence in State v Egwu, the respondent, as President of Youths of Amorie Ozizza Community in Afikpo North L.G.A of Ebonyi State, directed members of the Task Force of the Youths Association of the Amaorie Ozziza to go out as a group to compel youths in the community to attend the meeting of the youths of the community to hold that day at the community playground concerning some development projects to be executed by the community. Armed with sticks, machetes, and axes, the youths invaded the home of one Ali Agha to compel him to attend the said meeting. In the process of compelling him to follow them, they killed him by inflicting multiple machete cuts on his body resulting in acute loss of blood. 

The Supreme Court, reaffirming the judgment of the High Court, and reversing the Court of Appeal decision, held that the respondent was guilty of the offence of murder. And it was immaterial that he only gave the directives. 

Thank you for reading. See you next week.