--Sometime ago, I tried to convince my brother Louis that theoretically, La Republique du Cameroun even as a Trespasser in Southern Cameroons, since they are in possession and full control of the territory, as trespasser in possession, they have the legal right to sue a third party like Nigeria against trespass on the land unless Nigeria can show they have better rights than La Republique du Cameroon or they can show evidence that they are a trespasser in possession and not La Republique du Cameroon.
Both parties cannot sue Southern Cameroons for trespass since we are the bonafide title owners of the land. I could not convince Louis and said we should agree to disagree until when I can get a case that clearly states the issue. I tried to avoid British or American cases and looked for local Cameroonian or Nigeria cases since the local/customary/municipal laws are similar. I hope the below case/cases will put the outstanding issue between me and him to rest. i.e. that a trespasser to land who is in possession can sue another trespasser who comes to disturb his possession and enjoyment of the trespassed land. It is like a squatter or trespasser suing someone (subsequent potential squatter or trespasser not the owner) who comes to disturb him. As reprehensible as this might sound, it is the law.In Omotayo v. Co-operative Supply Association (2011) Vol. 202 LRCN , the judge said
"Where a plaintiff has failed to prove title to land, it may be necessary to consider evidence of possession in order to ascertain whether he is in any event entitled to damages and injunction claimed for trespass, if it is shown that he was in possession which was disturbed. This is on the basis that trespass is essentially an issue of who is in possession. A person who is in possession of land even as a trespasser can sue another who thereafter comes upon the land unless that other is the owner or shows some title which gives him a better right to be on the land. There is cogent evidence that the respondent was in possession of the land in dispute and therefore can sue without asking for declaration".
Other cases that support the above point are as follows:
(i) Oluwi v. Eniola (1967) NMLR 339;
(ii) Kareem v. Ogunde (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.1) 73;
(iii) Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 ALL NLR 119;
(iv) Oduola v. Nabhan (1981) 5 SC 197;
(v) Aromire v. Awoyemi (1972) 2 SC 57; (1972) 1
All NLR (Pt.1) 101.
(vi) Adesanya v. Otueh (1993) 1 SCNLR pg. 77;
(vii) Jodi v. Salami (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt 458) 385;
(viii) Ekpo v. Uyo (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) pg.63.
ConclusionTheoretically, La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession in Southern Cameroons can sue a third party trespasser like Nigeria who comes later and tries to disturb his quiet enjoyment of the trespassed land such as exploitation of its mineral and oil and gas resources. Its hands are tied only in relation to Southern Cameroons people and/or government.
Regards
Tumasang
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment