LAND TENURE SYSTEM IN SOUTH-WESTERN NIGERIA (PART II)

LAND TENURE SYSTEM IN SOUTH-WESTERN NIGERIA DURING THE COLONIAL RULE

            During Colonial Era, before the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914, the Colonial Nigeria was divided into colonies and protectorates where multiplicity of land tenure system existed. The arrival of the Europeans in Southern Nigeria in the later part of 19^th century drastically changed the land holding system. The European traders, who were used to freehold, began to acquire land parcel in Lagos Colony, did so with the concept that the transaction conferred on them absolute ownership and the right of alienation. The transaction in land by the European and the introduction of English Freehold System in 1951 (Elias, 1971) caused deep conflict between the customary system of land tenure and imported freehold system, which resulted in endless and bitter litigation.   

            A number of different phases may be distinguished in the debate about land. These phases are marked by the changing relationships between Africans, administrators and commercial interests. In the early colonial period the attitude of the administration was one of indifference. However, as the state and commercial interests began to seek and obtain interests in land, the issue took on increasing importance, becoming a preoccupation of Nigeria's colonial administrators. From this period, the ‘land question’ figures repeatedly in colonial correspondence, memoranda, reports and enquiries. The main concern of the colonialists was with political stability rather than agricultural development, their fear being that the extensive alienation of interests in land to national or expatriate commercial interests would lead to landlessness and discontent.

            In Northern Nigeria, the Land and Native Rights Ordinance of 1910 vested all lands in the governor of Northern Nigeria. Similar legislation was proposed in some quarters for the south of the country, but this was strenuously, and in the end successfully, resisted by indigenous interests. In southern Nigeria, the system recognised that land was owned by lineages or extended families. Individuals have only right of use on such family land. The only land held at  the Governor’s  disposal  was  that  which  had  been  expressly  acquired  for public purposes as Crown land. The only control imposed by law on the lineages and other local landholders was an obligation to seek the consent of Government when rights are being conveyed to aliens.

            The colonial administration in southern Nigeria recognised the existing indigenous system of land management and administration. The Treaty of Cession of 1861 was signed by Oba Dosunmu of Lagos; but what Oba Dosunmu transferred were sovereign rights only to the Queen of Great Britain, her heirs and successors forever. However, the court ruled later that property rights of individuals or inhabitants were not affected by the treaties. Thus, it was only  the management of land that was transferred.

            The Native Lands Acquisition Proclamation of 1st January 1900, provided that with effect from 1st January, 1900: No person other than a Native shall either directly or indirectly acquire right in or over land within southern Nigeria from Natives without the written consent of the High Commissioner. Any such interest or right over land acquired without such consent from shall become null or void.

            The crown did not claim beneficial ownership of land by virtue of the declaration of the protectorate in 1900. The crown however, did inherit certain parcels of land which were vested in the royal Niger company, its predecessor. These lands has been acquired from the local chiefs along both sides of the Niger and they became vested in the government in trust for her majesty absolutely by virtue of the Niger land Transfer Ordinance 1916.

            By 1906, the Crown Lands Management Proclamation was introduced. It was designed to  provide for the management, control and disposition of Crown Lands in the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. It provided that the High land Commissioner shall have the management of all that Crown Lands in the Protectorate; and that he may for  'from time to time sell, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of such lands as he may think fit.'

            Crown lands were defined as all lands and all rights in land and over which at any time or after the commencement of the proclamation are vested in, held in trust for or otherwise belong to her majesty, her heirs and successors.

            Another important land legislation was the Native Lands Acquisition Ordinance of 1908. This ordinance sought to regulate the acquisition of land by aliens from the Natives. However, the 1908 Ordinance was repealed in 1917 by the Native Lands Acquisition Ordinance No 32 of 1917. This Ordinance provided amongst others that no alien should acquire any interest or rights in or over any land within the Protectorate from a native except under an instrument which has received the approval of the Governor. Any instrument which land did not received the approval of the Governor as required by the section did null and void. From the foregoing analysis, it is clear that the colonial lever administration in southern Nigeria was mainly concerned with, and confined its administrative control that to the alienation of land by natives to aliens or nonnatives.

PROBLEM OF THE LAND TENURE SYSTEM IN SOUTHWESTERN NIGERIA DURING THE COLONIAL RULE IN THE SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA        

            This land tenure system of southern Nigeria created a number of problems  for  land  management in the country. First, it encouraged the practice of multiple sales of the same land to different buyers by landowning  families in the absence of a titling and appropriate  registration mechanisms for transactions in land. Second, The introduction of freehold in the Southern States and the subsequent economic development resulted in the evolvement of many varied interest or right in land especially in urban areas. Particularly  after  the  nation’s  political independence, it led to tremendous land  speculation and a  sharp  rise  in  the  prices of land for urban and infrastructural development. Poor farming families were  encouraged  to part  with  their  land  for  relatively small amount compared with  what the speculators  made from  laying  the  land out for sale. This promoted  increasing  inequality in land ownership and increasing landlessness among the poorer segments of the population. Speculators made it very difficult for other land users and even various governments and their agencies to acquire land for development purposes (Atilola and Fajemirokun, 1979). After government had invoked its rights of eminent domain to  compulsorily  acquire  and pay compensation for land  for  public  purposes,  the  tendency grew for  some  owners  of  land to refuse to vacate their land. Based on the open system value of land which  required cash compensation for land compulsorily acquired by government for public purposes, the increasing intervention of land speculators made the cost of acquisition to rise phenomenally.

REFERENCES

1.      B.A Garner (1999): Black Law Dictionary. West Group U.S.A. 7^th ed. p.881.

2.      B. O. Nwabueze  (1982): Nigerian Land Law. Nwamife Publishers Ltd Enugu p.3

3.      C.R.A Coker (1966): Family  Property Among The Yoruba. Sweet and Maxwell London, 2^nd Edition P.34

4.      C.W.  Rowling (1952): Report on Land   Tenure in Ondo  Province. Government   Printer. Lagos.

5.      Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1978. Land Use Decree. No. 6 of 1978

6.      I.E. Nwokora (1989): The Nigeria Juridical  Review  vol.4  p. 92-93.

7.      R.W James.(1987): Nigerian Land Use Act: policy and principles. University of Ife Press, IIe-Ife P.1.  

8.      J.S. Eades (1980): The Yoruba Today. Cambridge Univeristy Press.

9.      Kludz Ewe (1974): Law of property. Evans London , p.11

10.  Kenneth    PARSONS : Customary Land  Tenure and  The Development   of  African Agriculture.  Land   Tenure Center,    University   of  Wisconsin,    Madison,    Wisconsin, page  16.

11.  N. A. Olienu (1962):  Customary Land Law in Ghana. Sweet and Maxwell London pg 37.

12.  Obi (1963): Ibo Law of Property. Butterworth London p. 113.

13.  O.G Amasiatu, O.U. Onuoha & Kenneth Aqwu (2010): Land Rights Characteristics And Access To Land:Implications On Food Security In Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 2  Numbers  2 & 3,  2010. Pg 148-149

14.  Okoronkwo, C. (2009). Power of attorney as an instrument for alienation of interest in Land in Nigeria. A paper delivered on the NIESV 2009 MCPD organized by the Imo State chapter of NIESV in association with ESVARBON.

15.  Ola C.S. (1984): Town and Country Planning and Environmental Laws in Nigeria. University Press Ibadan.

16.  Onwuchekwa, S. (1999): Land ownership and conflict in Nigeria. Umuahia: Kab Publicity

17.  P.A.  Francis (1984): 'For the Use and Common Benefit of all Nigerians':  Consequencies of the 1978 land nationalisation.    Africa 54(3):5-28.

18.  P.C. Lloyd (1962): Yoruba land law. Oxford University Press, Ibadan, p.56

19.  Real Estate Dictionary. Retrieved on 28/06/2010 from http://www.financialpublishing.com/realestatedictionary

20.  R. Galletti,  K.D.S. Baldwin  and I.0. Dina (1956): Nigerian  Cocoa ·Farmers.  Oxford University  Press, London.

LAND TENURE SYSTEM IN SOUTH-WESTERN NIGERIA (PART I)

CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE SYSTEM IN SOUTH-WESTERN NIGERIA

Land tenure system in the South Western Nigeria show a marked variation and have also been subject to considerable change in the course of present century under the influence of increasing population densities and the spread of cocoa. The cocoa industry first develop in the Western areas: Ilaro, Agege, Abeokuta, Ibadan and Ijebu. As the trees in these areas have aged, the centre of production has gradually moved east to Ondo, Akure and Owo and in some western areas kola has replaced cocoa entirely.

            According to Eades (1980), Land  tenure  is a question  of great complexity and only a very schematic account can be given here.  Three important points should be made at the outset.

·         First a distinction  has to be made  between  the right to use land and rights  of full ownership, particularly the right to alienate it. In many cases throughout Yorubaland, the two do not coincide.

·         Second,  as land becomes more valuable, either because of its increasing scarcity or its potential for cash crops, conflict  over access to, and control of, land will increase, and an increasing quantum of rights will be asserted over it. As Lloyd (1962) remarks of Ondo  land tenure, “while land has little scarcity or commercial value it will be described as communal: but as soon as it becomes valuable the descent groups currently using it will begin to claim amount to full ownership”. In different areas of Yorubaland, ownership of land is variously thought of as being vested in the ruler on behalf of the community, as being vested in descent groups, or as being vested in individuals. In Ondo, the position, according to Lloyd (1962), is that the ruler claims that all land belongs to him on behalf of the community. An Ondo man may farm anywhere in the kingdom provided that if he farms within one hour’s walk (3 - 4 miles) 0f subordinate town, he must get the permission of “Oloja” (ruler) of the town ; he may not be disturbed in his possession of land, but should he abandon it the land reverts to the community. The Ondo rules may reflect Benin influence: in the Benin Kingdom, land is vested in the community rather than in descent groups. However, it appears that Ondo descent groups have asserted rights of ownership over particular tracts of land, particularly on the perimeter of the capital and in areas suitable for cocoa-planting, where they are demanding annual payments (isakole) for the use of the land.

·         Thirdly, a sharp distinction as to be drawn between the rights that a member of a kingdom can have in its land the rights which can be acquired by an outsider.   In many  cases, outsiders  can become  tenants,   but cannot claim rights of ownership  over land, and as the scarcity  of land  increases, the  more  rigidly this  rule may be applied.

            According to Eades (1980), rights in land may be vested in a variety of social groups which may be defined in political, residential or kinship terms, or a combination of these. Residentially defined groups include communities, quarters and villages, while groups based on kinship include lineages of various depths and sizes, extended families and households. In the Ondo area, for example, substantial rights remain vested in the community while in Abeokuta, most land is held by individuals (Rowling, 1952; Lloyd, 1962). In most areas the important unit of land ownership is the lineage, or idile. Criteria for lineage membership  are by no means uniform, and in particular recognition of the validity of matrilateral links (i.e. the mother's side), is variable. In general, while there is a fairly strong patrilineal ideology, in practice kinship links of other kinds, as well as co-residence, may form the basis for participation in lineage affairs and access to land. Lloyd (1962) records of some areas that lineage land was reallocated annually to members, and that in Ado Ekiti lineage members required the permission of the lineage to plant permanent crops. In general, whether land is obtained through membership of a community or lineage or through  inheritance, the wider group exercises little control over its use, and the individual is free to plant either food or tree crops.

            Descent group control over land is more usual. This is the pattern in Ibadan, Ijebu and  Ekiti. Within  the descent  group,  land is allocated  according to need.  A farmer  can use land allocated  to him and can pass it on to his children, but usually he cannot alienate it without the permission of the descent group as a whole. In the case of large descent groups a process of partition has often taken place. The land is divided between segments which can dispose of it without reference to the other segments and this process of fragmentation has reached its fullest extent in Egba, where it is common to have land rights vested in individual farmers (Lloyd, 1962).

            In Ibadan descent-group control of land has remained strong, despite the early introduction of cocoa. In the 19th century the leading warriors and their followers claimed large tracts of land, and they maintained control over them into the colonial period, establishing a tradition of corporate ownership. On the introduction of cocoa, hunters who acted as guides to Ibadan farmers looking for land in the forest suitable for cocoa began to claim rights of ownership over it themselves. Their ownership was marked by the initial gifts they received from the farmers, and by annual payments of isakole thereafter. At first these were nominal payments recognising ownership, rather than an economic rental. The tenants could remain permanently, and pass their usufructuary rights on to their  children who continued to pay isakole but  they had no right to alienate the land itself (Eades, 1980).    

            According to Eades (1980), Land rights took a different form in Egba, where a free market  in land had developed before 1880, before the arrival of cocoa. European concepts of ownership had been introduced by the Saro repatriates to Abeokuta. After 1880 re-colonisation of land abandoned during the 1820s was stimulated by the introduction of the new crop, and the elders of the abandoned towns, now living in Abeokuta, began to reallocate land to individual farmers in return for gifts. These transactions came to be regarded as sales. Land sales became so common that steps had to be taken to restrict them to members of the kingdom. With the division of Abeokuta into townships and the complex political  institutions cross-cutting  lines of descent, powerful descent  groups on the Ibadan model did not emerge. Partitioning of land in each generation has meant  that some land has been inherited through women  as men without  sons have passed on their holdings to their daughters. Taken together, these factors have led to a situation in which farmers  have widely scattered plots  separated in some cases by 30 km or more. Plots which a farmer is unable to use may be let to tenants, for food-crop cultivation rather than cocoa-planting.

            Individual ownership may result from other processes. In a recent study of the lfe-Ondo border area, Clarke (1979) found that individual tenure had developed through individual colonization and appropriation of forest land from the 1930s onwards, without a stage of descent group.

            Non-members of landowning groups may also obtain the use of land. Within the traditional system, the granting of land to immigrants was merely an aspect of their integration into the community. Where tribute was  paid, this was a question  of political,  rather than economic, significance. As scarcity has given land a value, relations between the grantors and grantees of land have become more narrowly economic, although the process has been an uneven one.

            'Strangers' (alejo) may obtain access to land in a number of different ways. Most critical is the fact that grants of land do not necessarily include the right to plant trees (Galletti 1955; Francis 1984). Thus Lloyd (1962) records of the Ijebu Ode area is that while some strangers were granted land in perpetuity, these grants were for food crops only and the land could not be transferred by the  grantee. More common arrangement was for strangers to be given land for a single crop cycle in exchange for a cash payment to the head  of the granting group. No rights over existing trees were transferred, and the tenant was not allowed to plant permanent crops. With the harvest of the last crop, the tenant must pay a fresh fee for another plot of  fallow land. In other parts  of Ijebu the system differed: in Ijebu Igbo, land was granted to strangers by village heads in exchange for annual payments, while in Iwoye  payments were due to the chief. In Abeokuta grants of fallow land included only the right to plant food crops, and tenancies could  be ended at the end of any cropping cycle. An annual rent was payable in cash. In Ado Ekiti and Ijesha too, grants of land for growing food crops only are distinguished from those which include the right to plant trees (Lloyd, 1962; Francis, 1984).

            These restrictions notwithstanding, outsiders have been able to obtain land for the cultivation of economic trees from landowning groups. The terms of such arrangements varied from place to place. In general, an initial payment was made when the land was granted and this was followed by annual payments    to the landowner in cash or kind. These payments came to be known as isakole and to be enforceable in customary courts. In the Ibadan area, lineages with claims over extensive tracts of land, which often     originated in hunters' rights, made grants to others of Ibadan origin in exchange for initial presents        followed by annual payments of cash. In other areas, an influx of migrant tenants from areas to the north accompanied the spread of cocoa cultivation and perhaps facilitated the commercialisation of land tenure.        At Ife, the typical rates of isakole on land for cocoa cultivation were two quarters or a hundredweight of cocoa per year, and these terms applied to natives and strangers alike. Similar arrangements evolved in the Ijesha area, though here only immigrants were liable for isakole (Berry, 1975;  Francis, 1984). Lloyd (1962) recorded that  in Ondo a newcomer  had the same  rights as a native.

            However, by the 1970's this system had broken down with the arrival of migrants and substantial sums of  isakole were being demanded from tenants. In general, the social obligations and implications of tenancy have tended to diminish with time, while the cost of obtaining rights in land has risen.  

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CUSTOMARY FORM OF TENURE IN SOUTHWESTERN NIGERIA

            Adegboye (1967) identifies defects in land tenure, farm tenancy and the provision of agricultural credit as obstacles to increasing productivity per acre and per farmer. With regard to land tenure he states that: ‘The present structure of land tenure makes it virtually impossible for enterprising young farmers to mobilise their labour and capital as freely as they would like to’. This is so because sales of land are rare, and thus the cultivator and his descendants are confined to family land, and because the division of land upon inheritance leads to holdings becoming uneconomic in size and productivity. The defects of customary farm tenancy are enumerated as follows: the terms of leases are often verbal and indefinite; the amount of tribute paid is governed more by the tenant's relationship to his landlord than by the fertility or location of the land; subleasing is common in some areas; and the tenant is sometimes forbidden to plant permanent crops. Overall, the tenant's insecure position discourages him from making substantial investments of capital or labour in the land which he occupies. The principal problem with regard to agricultural credit is also held to stem from customary land tenure: ‘A piece of land which is communally owned cannot be used for collateral’ and thus the commercial banks do not lend to farmers (Adegboye,1967).       

CONCEPT OF LAND TENURE SYSTEM IN NIGERIA

            Land tenure is the system of land holding in any given society. It is also define as the holding of land or the right to hold land.

            The  concept of land  tenure  has been described  as a systematization  of the rules which function  by specifying what different classes of persons may or may not must or must not do, with reference to the occupancy, use, abuse or disposition of land.  Such rules define the privileges and obligations,  the rights and  duties of persons in relation  to each other,  with reference to land. The system of land tenure also sets out the method of administration with regard to acquisition, distribution, exploitation and use of specific portions of land.

            Land tenure systems may be extremely complex. It will therefore be helpful to distinguish those rights over land. According to (Amasiatu, 2010), there exist different types of rights exercised over land. Among the varieties are:

•  Usufructuary right: This is the right to use and profit from property vested in another, so long as the user (usufructuary) does not change the substance of the property. It would include an easement but not a profit a prendre (Real Estate Dictionary, n.d). Another source defined this right as a system of land tenure where land is communally owned and people have free access to use it.
• Right of Occupancy: This type of right is documented in a certificate of occupancy (C of O) and refers to the right granted to a holder to occupy a property within a limited/defined time frame. In Nigeria, this right came with the land use Act of 1978 which recognizes the right of occupancy as the only interest in land in Nigeria according to Okoronkwo (2009), "the right inherent in the certificate of occupancy does not confer proprietary rights of ownership of land to the holder but of occupancy and use only".
• Residual Rights: According to Onwuchekwa (1999), this right applies when a land is under pledge. The individual to whom the land is pledged continues to use the land perpetually until the land is redeemed. Property Right: According to a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, 2003), the right that a person has in an object such as land may be considered as property… In the case of land tenure, it is sometimes described more precisely as property rights to land. Mbadiwe (1998) adds that land use decisions can only be taken and carried out by people with property rights in land. Property right could be said to confer on its holder, proprietary right as it were.
• Symbolic Right: This applies where land has been donated for development project without any monetary attachments but mere recognition of the donor (Onwuchekwa, 1999).
• Grazing Rights: This is a form of right granted to people to graze on another person's land (Onwuchekwa, 1999; FAO (n. d)). Communal Rights: A right of commons where each member of a community has a right to use the holdings of the community independently (FAO (n. d)). 
• Freehold and leasehold rights: By and large, land rights could be classified as customary rights and statutory rights. Leasehold, freehold and rights of occupancy are examples of statutory rights. They are defined by clearly stated laws/ regulations. Customary rights such as usufructuary rights, symbolic rights, grazing rights, communal rights, property rights etc, are derivatives of customs and traditions. In some instances, some of these rights find their places in both categories.

            However, it must be recognized and stressed that the duality of the Nigeria legal systems, (that is, the administration of both the customary laws and the Received English Laws with respect to land) has resulted in the existence of customary and non-customary land tenure systems in Nigeria.

            Land is of fundamental importance in traditional Nigerian society, and is communally owned, although family or corporate ownership existed side by side with communal ownership. It is a source of wealth and is greatly valued as an indispensable factor of production. Agriculture, the oldest occupation of mankind, takes place on land. Traditional Africa in general and Nigeria in particular maintained a liberal policy of allocation of land resources. Land was allocated to families and individuals, while the community or clan maintained absolute ownership. The chief or the head of the lineage or clan was the custodian of the land. His position was that of a trustee, holding the land for the clan or the whole community. These custodians were invested with the power to manage and administer the communal property but in the interests of members of the community. Strangers and people with problems were easily absorbed and settled without discrimination and with land to use at their discretion. These additions were based on the cultural beliefs and attitudes towards life and hospitality. 
            It must also be recognized that both the customary and non-customary land tenure systems in Nigeria have been qualified by the Land Use Act of 1978 to the extent that the Act now provides for new uniform tenure system in Nigeria although it still preserves the existing title and rights to possession of land.

LEGAL CONCEPT OF LAND

Black law dictionary 7^th edition defines land as “An immovable and indestructible three dimensional areas consisting of a portion of the earth’s surface the space above and below the surface and everything growing on or permanently affixed to the land”.

            What emerges from the definition above  is that land may have both a natural and artificial content, though its natural content namely the ground and its subsoil and things below or above the earth’s surface, where an artificial content includes building and other structures or trees has been added. It further explains that land is immovable. However, the question has arisen whether such additions form an integral part of the ground so as to accrue to the owner of the ground.
            Under English law, the part or principle of “quic quid plantatour solo solo credit” which means that whatever is attached or fixed to the land is part of the land is fully operational. Thus building material placed on land do not become land until the building is erected and would cease to be part of the land when the building is demolished.
            The applicability of the maxim quic quid plantatour solo solo credit to customary law has been a matter of great controversy amongst writers. In  Ezejiofor (1989) view, the maxim quic quid plantatour solo solo credit is not a rule of customary law there under a person who for whatever reasons introduces an improvement unto land without the permission of the landowner is the rightful owner of the improvement. According to Obi (1963),  a remarkable aspect of African customary law is that land does not includes things growing on, attached to the soil and that neither economic trees not houses form a part of the land on which they stand. In Yoruba’s customary law, a definition is drawn between land (the soil) and improvements thereon (Lloyd,1962). Expressing a similar view, Kludz (1974) explained that among the Ewes in Modern day Ghana land means the soil itself as well as the subsoil and anything under the soil such as soil minerals but that does not include things as or attached to the soil such as tree, houses or other permanent fixtures to these writers the principles of quic quid plantatour solo solo credit is not part of our customary land law.
            According to section 3 (miscellaneous provision) of the Land Use Act  of 1978, “immovable property or lands included land, everything attached to the earth, and chattels real, but does  not include minerals in the language of the property. Property and Conveyancing Law of Western Nigeria states that land includes land of any tenure, buildings or parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way) and other corporal hereditaments and an easement, right, privileged or benefit in, over, or derived from land.
            Nwabueze (1982), while endorsing the above definitions, states that land does not only mean the ground and its subsoil but includes also all structures and objects, like buildings and tress standing on it. Coker (1966) stated categorically that in any application of the term land includes building there on.  Supporting this view Olienu (1962) had stated: “the term land as understood in customary law has a wide application. It includes things on the soil which are employed with it as being part of the land by nature e.g rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, growing trees like palmtrees cassava tree or as being artificially fixed to it like houses buildings and structures whatever it is also includes any estate, interest into or over the land denotes e.g. the right to collect snail, herbs or to hurt on land.
            From the discussion above, obviously the issues is far from resolved. Suffice it so say that if the Obi and LIoyd’s views are accepted, then there may exist a situation in which a building or other structure vest in one person, while the ground vests in another person. This will certainly create some problems since the owner who in law has a superior title may be deprived of the benefit of making full use of his land as he wishes where someone to whom he has granted an occupational right builds a house during the subsistence of the agreement is held to remain the owner of the house at the determination of the agreement.
            For this reason, the views expressed by Coker, Olienu and Nwabueze are to be preferred with the restriction that where landlord and the builder of the house on the land have evidenced a contrary intention such intention should be given effect, in such a case, if land lord and a house builder agree that ownership of house shall continue to vest in the landlord, then the house builder should continue to retain ownership of the building but will be obliged to remove it at the instance of the landlord and pay compensation to the landlord for any damage done to the land.
            In Nigeria, land takes up importance as a commodity for daily use for many purposes.  For several decades, land has continued to influence the lives of Nigerians socially, economically and politically. In the process of using the land, complex set of relationships has emerged among groups. The more complex various Nigerian communities become, and the more established are the physical manifestations of development, the more friction and clashes are likely over rights in land. This shows that in Nigeria, as in other developing countries generally, land constitutes a sensitive asset whose administration must be based on meaningful policy decisions to benefit most Nigerians. 

Land occupies a unique place in the development process of any individual or society. The supply of useable land is however limited. No society therefore exists without a regulation of some kind peculiar to it to rationalize the mode of ownership and the use of land.