Adverse Possession in Nigeria: A Legal Practitioner’s Perspective
Imagine inheriting a valued family property, only to return years later and find that someone else has legally claimed it. This unsettling reality is made possible by adverse possession, a doctrine that allows an individual to claim legal ownership of land through continuous, open, and exclusive occupation without the consent of the rightful owner. In Nigeria, as in many other jurisdictions, this principle is rooted in the need to encourage the productive use of land while ensuring that property owners remain vigilant in protecting their rights. However, the application of adverse possession raises fundamental questions about justice, fairness, and the integrity of land tenure systems.
Legal Framework Governing Adverse Possession in Nigeria
The legal foundation for adverse possession in Nigeria is primarily derived from the Limitation Act of 1966. Under this Act, a landowner must assert their right to reclaim property within twelve years from the commencement of unauthorised occupation. Failure to do so results in the occupier acquiring legal ownership, thereby extinguishing the original owner’s title. This statutory limitation emphasises the principle that land should not remain idle or neglected indefinitely.
In practical terms, for an adverse possessor to successfully claim ownership, their possession must meet certain legal requirements:
- Open and Notorious Possession: The occupation must be visible and apparent, so the original owner is put on notice.
- Continuous Possession: The possession must be uninterrupted for the entire statutory period.
- Exclusive Possession: The occupier must exercise dominion over the land as an owner would.
- Hostile Possession: The occupation must be without the consent of the original owner.
Judicial Precedents and Interpretations
Nigerian courts have upheld the doctrine of adverse possession in several landmark cases. In Alhaji S. A. Kazeem & Anr v. Madam Wemimo Mosaku & Ors, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an adverse possessor could successfully acquire a title if the original owner fails to take legal action within the statutory period. Similarly, in Oladimeji v. Oshinowo (1983), the Supreme Court held that adverse possession requires uninterrupted and unequivocal possession for at least twenty years. The court further emphasised that the owner must have been dispossessed or must have acquiesced in the possession for the claim to be valid.
These judicial pronouncements highlight the courts’ approach to striking a balance between protecting property owners and recognizing the rights of long-term occupants who have effectively exercised ownership over a piece of land.
Comparative Analysis and Global Perspectives
The concept of adverse possession is not unique to Nigeria. In common law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, similar principles apply, although with varying statutory periods and legal nuances. However, some countries have chosen to abolish or reform the doctrine altogether. For instance, Singapore has eliminated adverse possession claims, reinforcing the principle that registered landowners should not lose their property due to mere inaction.
Nigeria as a common law jurisdiction will likely stick with this principle of law as against the global shift, as done by Singapore, to promote land utilization and discourage absentee ownership.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
The customary traditions of Nigeria, and even the law clearly referenced above, allow for mediation dialogue between opposing parties. Apart from the customary law, we also have an ADR legal framework and policy that encourage the use of ADR in resolving disputes, including land matters. We now have multi-door courts and mediation centers all over the country, which can be utilised to resolve disputes to the satisfaction of the parties. In some instances, exploring ADR methodologies may be an immediate, short-term, affordable remedy that will help mitigate an otherwise worrisome and explosive problem. It is, therefore, worthwhile enabling this solution rather than to be adversarial in court in the long-term.
Conclusion: A Call for Legal Reform and Public Awareness
While adverse possession serves a functional purpose in preventing land from lying dormant, it also poses significant risks to rightful landowners who may be unaware of the occupation of their property. Given the evolving nature of property law and the increasing need to protect legitimate ownership rights, Nigerian lawmakers may need to consider reviewing the statutory framework governing adverse possession.
Furthermore, public awareness campaigns should be intensified to educate landowners on their rights and the importance of periodic property inspections. By fostering a legal system that balances fairness, efficiency, and justice, Nigeria can ensure that land laws serve the interests of both owners and long-term occupants in an equitable manner.
For a more in-depth understanding of adverse possession in Nigeria, watch our Did You Know? KO Series for expert insights!
Contributor
