Improvement Of Family Land And Management Of Family Land, Andalienation Of Family Land, Power Of Attorney(Aaaaoo), Termination Of Family Property.

Front 1

Bassey vs Cobham

Back 1

Thefamily member reclaimed mashed land from money from his personal pocket but the court held that it doesn't take away the fact that he land is for family member

Front 2

Shelle vs asajon

Back 2

The family member changes the thatched roof to a corrugated iron sheet the court held that it wasn't still her house but that of the family and who so ever is living under family prior is expected to make changes to suit his comforts

Front 3

Sateng vs Darkwa

Back 3

The dead man erected a full building a family land and devised it to his children Be upon his death the court held its was separate from the family property.

Front 4

Owoo vs owoo

Back 4

Building erected with testator money at his death was held to be family property.

Front 5

Alao vs Ajani

Back 5

Three disputed land in the case was actually a family land and the first and second defendant were actually family members and the erected and improved the land and leased it too the fourth and third defendant.

The court held that

1_the land was actually allotted and so they could use it however they want to without permission, transfer his right to use and enjoy even to his children but not sell

2_the first and second defendant did not again ownership because the land was allotted

Front 6

Amodu Tijani

Back 6

The family head is some what a trustee and as such holds the land for the user off the family.

Front 7

Oyekanmi vs Adele, archibong vs archibong

Back 7

Both referred to the family head as the trustee of the family property

Front 8

Kuma vs Kuma

Back 8

The WACA described the family head as a trustee to determine whether he should be healed responsible for mismanagement of the family property.

Front 9

Aralawon vs aromire

Back 9

The family head was held solely responsible for the loan he collected in his own capacity even if most of it was used to improve the family land

Front 10

Bassey vs Cobham ( management of FL)

Back 10

The family head is always expected to take action to defend the family property.

Front 11

Adagun vs fagbola

Back 11

The family head is responsible trip allot portions of the land to the family members

Front 12

Inasa vs oshodi

Back 12

The family dead it's the only one to enforce foreiture

Front 13

Onwusike vs onwusike, Akande vs Akande

Back 13

The family head is bounded by good faith when carrying out is duty

Front 14

LTC vs Aromire

Back 14

Family head is referred to as the agent

Front 15

Akano vs anjuwon

Back 15

Family head is called the manager

Front 16

Solomon vs Mogaji +management (

Back 16

The supreme court defined family head as a person who is not an owner, trustee, agent but manager who is to act in good faith when he is managing family property

Front 17

Abude vs onalo, uzamah vs uzamah

Back 17

Neither the chief of family head can be as to account for the state or family property.

Front 18

Rettotonu

Back 18

Family head is not under strict duty to make account to other family my members

Front 19

Coker's book family property

Back 19

The Yoruba views that non accountability is one of the privileges that a family head enjoys

Front 20

Kosoko vs kosoko

Back 20

The plaintiff sued the family head to account for the rent and profit of the family property which the family head had managed for over forty years and the plaintiff had not being in the country for over 30 years. The court held that he could not clean on his return account from the family head and emphasized that you can't sued the family head t of account unless you can prove Anny action he did that amounts of breach of trust

Front 21

Archibong vs archibong

Back 21

The plaintiff sued the family head to account for the compensation the government gave them over compulsory acquisition of family property

Front 22

Osoro vs anjorin

Back 22

The family head was head liable to account of how he sent the family money

Front 23

Akande vs akanbi

Back 23

Said it has become and accepted point of duty now that the family head account for the transaction in order to meet the family members see the true position of things

Front 24

Onwusike vs onwusike

Back 24

The family head had to account for rent received by him

Front 25

Taiwo vs dosunmu

Back 25

The plaintiff sued the defendant who is the family head for account of the money paid to him and the payment of his own share of the money paid to him

Trail court said get away no

Court of appeal didn't make any definite pronunciation on the issue but said the principle that a family head should not account is not Nigerian and that kosoko vs kosoko never actually said don't account in any circumstances

Supreme court said the family head had the duty to account has the rule doesn't apply to Nigeria and any body suing the family head must

_ have the support of other family members

_ must not have distanced himself from the family

Front 26

Mogaji vs nuga

Back 26

So the defendant bought a Land from the family head who consulted only 2 branches out of 5 branches the family and when he comes out and super until after 10 years they wanted to sue but the court held that they were not timely

Front 27

Adejumo vs ayantegbe

Back 27

The owner or the land did not hear word because the owner of the land sent warning through publication so it can't be said that so it can't be said that he did not warn him because he did not accept

Front 28

Alli vs ikesebiala

Back 28

When a Land is still in court for the issue of voidable title any sale made on the land is void

Front 29

Oshodi vs aremu

Back 29

Normally sale by family head is voidable but it would be void abinitio if the family head gave the land as a gift to somebody without the family consent even if it was a family member

Front 30

Onasanya vs showoniku

Back 30

If the family head partition the land by himself and alienate the land without the family consents it would be void abinitio

Front 31

Aromire vs LTC

Back 31

This talks about implied power of attorney and when the family holds out a member to be a representative of them

Front 32

Ojo vs anibire

Back 32

When a power of attorney has been executed then then permission of the principal member is not need

Front 33

Ajamagun vs oshunrinde

Back 33

The power of attorney must be executed by the family head with his Express consent or else such transaction would be void

Front 34

Ashade vs Aruba,adegbokun vs akinsanya

Back 34

Any disposition made by a power of attorney that not with the consent of family head is null and has no effect.

Front 35

Oshola vs Finnih

Back 35

The family head and the power of attorney has the same power infact they have concurrent power it does not preclude his power

Front 36

Abraham vs olorunfemi

Back 36

Defined partition has when everybody are all Co tenant every member having there separate portion

Front 37

Balogun vs Balogun

Back 37

When partitioning it maybe voluntary as long as it has the consent of the family head and principal member

Front 38

Lopez vs Lopez

Back 38

The partition of land maybe involuntary when the court orders it's for the interest of peace and when it's unreasonable for it to remain family land

Front 39

Olaguno vs ogunsanya

Back 39

Exclusive agreement for the family members to enjoy there land is not partitioning be it won't amount to partitioning

Front 40

Dosunmu vs Adodo

Back 40

Partitioning can be inferred by the conduct of the members of the family

Front 41

Majekodunmi vs Tijani , Adeleke vs Aserifa

Back 41

Long possession of a land won't amount to partitioning

Front 42

Section 36(2), 36(5), 34(2)

Back 42

-perserves the existing right and interest of owners of land in non urban areas

-prohibits and criminalises any disposition of such interest

- preserves their interest

Front 43

Savannah bank vs ajilo

Back 43

Alienation can only be valid with governor consent