The Limitation Of Court Cases (2) By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Esq

It can be truly frustrating to be driven away from the doorstep
of the court, but it is more embarrassing not to be aware of the
established limitations statutorily placed on the right of access
to court.

They constitute part of the compulsory checklist of any aspiring
litigant, before approaching the court for any judicial remedy. In
the first piece of these series, we examined the limitation of
causes of action as it relates to contract and tort. We shall
proceed to examine other subject matters.

LAND CASES

Land is one of the most durable assets that one can ever aspire
to possess, given that it is permanent in nature and it is an
enduring investment. Though the value may vary from time to time,
but it is not subject to permanent waste and it can thus be passed
on from one generation to another. That is why it is often termed
‘Real Property’, which cannot be destroyed. The most notable danger
to this precious asset however is trespass, most oftentimes by the
same vendor that assigned the land in the first place. Many people
struggle to save money to be able to acquire just one plot of land
and upon acquisition, they start the next process of savings to be
able to build it, so we have the ugly scenario whereby many plots
of land remain vacant and unoccupied, leaving room for criminal
trespass by land speculators, squatters and thugs alike. In law,
there is a possibility that you may lose your land due to your own
negligence or carelessness.

Under and by virtue of section 16 of the Limitation Law of Lagos
State:

“16 – Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) and (3) of
this section, no action will be brought by a State authority to
recover any land after the expiration of twenty (20) years from the
date on which the right of action accrued to the State authority,
or if it first accrued to some person through whom the State
authority claims, to that person,
(2) – The following provisions will apply to an action by a person
to recover land –
(a) subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, no such action
will be brought after the expiration of twelve (12) years from the
date on which the right of action accrued to the person brining it
or, if it first accrued to some person through whom there are
claims, to that person,
(b) If the right of action first accrued to a State authority, the
action may be brought at any time before the expiration of the
period during which the action could have been brought by the State
authority, or of twelve (12) years from the date on which the right
of action accrued to some person other than the State authority,
whichever period first expires,
(3) For the purposes of this Law, a right of action to recover any
land which accrued to the Republic or to the Lagos State before the
commencement of this Law will be deemed to have been exercisable by
an appropriate State authority on the date on which it first
accrued to the Republic or to Lagos State, as the case may be.”

From the above provisions, anyone who desires to claim any
interest in land can only do so through the court within twelve
years of the accrual of the cause of action. Ordinarily, the period
of limitation begins to run from the date the cause of action
arose, so long as the claimant is under no legal disability which
may postpone the application of the statutory limitation. The best
mode of calculating the actual period of the accrual of the cause
of action is to probe into when the wrong was committed, as for
instance when the trespasser entered upon the land, when the land
was sold or when construction started on the land. This of course
does not affect claims for a declaration of title to land which is
based purely on customary law, which in most cases is predicated on
traditional history spanning many decades, often referred to as
‘time immemorial’.

What this simply means is that you cannot acquire land and go to
sleep. Where it is impossible for one reason or the other to
develop the land immediately, you have to work out convenient
strategies of monitoring the land, the most common of which is to
engage local security men to occupy a make-shift structure on the
land. In such a case, be sure to issue out an official receipt of
the temporary occupancy, even if the occupier is not actually
paying. In addition to this, you may also consider developing
friendly relations with a trusted member of the family that sold
the land, or partner with a security man in the neighbourhood,
constantly loading his phone with credit so he is encouraged to
call you very often, to give situation reports constantly.
Alternatively, you may engage a local farmer, if the land is
located in some undeveloped area, or give it out to religious
organizations for their programmes, provided you are careful to
document the transaction.

In the eyes of the law, twelve years is long enough for anyone
to challenge any trespass to or interference with land, after which
it is reasonable to conclude that the original owner is no longer
interested in or has waived his rights over the land. The problem
in most cases is that some people acquire land without disclosing
even to their spouses, such that in the case of any eventuality
like untimely death, the family may not be aware of the existence
of the land at all, or by the time they get to know of it, the
right has become extinguished by statute.

ADDENDUM

Cross-River State House of Assembly Moves to Outlaw Land Use
Act:

It was reported in the news last week, that the Cross-River
State House of Assembly has commenced the process of passing a Bill
that will confer rights of ownership of land directly on the
indigenes. Their infallible reasoning is that:

“The use of overriding state interest in land allocation
exercised by the governors means that they own land in trust for
the people. But examples show that communal laws safeguarding
communal land rights are relegated and the Land Use Act becomes the
instrument of appropriation and dispossession of communities’
lands. It must be noted that once the purpose of land acquisition
by government ceases to apply, land ought to revert to the
communities.”

You can never fault this, so I support the move by the Cross
Riverians. I had stated in a previous piece on this page that
Nigerians should rise up to challenge the Land Use Act and strike
it down, being a defective piece of military legislation designed
to snatch land from our people. In that piece, I had opined
that:

“In a country like Nigeria where so much dependence is on mines
and minerals, including gold, oil and gas, there has been a lot of
disputes and court cases on ownership of land. This is the spirit
behind the theory of compulsory acquisition of land, where
government has perfected the style of divesting traditional
ownership of land from the people and then turn around to
re-allocate same to others, under the guise of overriding public
purpose, which has now been extended to commercial development of
estates. This is what the courts must tackle and resolve on the
side of the people, as any purpose that does not bear general
utility value, such as land acquired for building schools, roads,
hospitals or such other public infrastructure, should not in any
way count as ‘overriding public purpose’. How do you take over
land, acquire it compulsorily and then turn around to allocate the
same land to a private company, who then develops a layout plan and
begins to sell the same land to members of the public, who are not
part of the land-owning family? The original land owners and their
coming generations are then thrown into the streets and at times
rendered completely homeless. It is injustice of the highest order,
which must stop. How do you rob Peter to pay Paul?”

This is the mischief that Cross-Rivers State is seeking to cure
with its proposed legislation and all people of good conscience
should support it. Ownership of land in most cases is by
traditional history and such an item should not be elevated to
national prominence as to insert the Land Use Act in the
Constitution so that it cannot be amended or repealed. Government
cannot seek to dispossess the people of their customary inheritance
with one hand and then transfer it to total strangers with the
other. In some cases, these strangers apply for land under the
guise of agricultural or even educational purposes only to turn
around later to commercialise same and turn it into commercial or
residential estates.

Some years back, the Lagos State Government took the bold
initiative to challenge the federal government in respect of its
control of inland waterways, by promulgating its own municipal law
to regulate its inland waters, wherein it repealed the National
Inland Waterways Authority Act. This was upheld by the Court of
Appeal in a recent decision, leading to some memorandum of
understanding between the two tiers of government. I urge other
States to follow the courageous initiative of Cross-Rivers State
and return land to the people, the rightful owners. When the
federal government moved the seat of power to the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja, virtually the whole of Ikoyi land became vacant.
In a very smart and bold move, the Onikoyi Royal family, ably (and
rightly) supported by the Lagos State Government, moved to the
court to claim back all land vacated by the federal government.
That is how it should be; namely that the policy of compulsory
acquisition of land should be abolished outrightly, but if at all,
the land should revert to the original owners, once the purpose of
acquisition becomes defeated, abandoned or outlived. If section 2
(2) of the Constitution, wherein it is stated that “Nigeria shall
be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital
Territory” is true and correct, then we should not maintain any
regime that allows the government to oppress the people over their
land.

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!