Search a Keyword!

Search our legal repository for any term from articles, statutes to cases

R. A. Ukejianya V. J. I. Uchendu (1950) LJR-WACA

R. A. Ukejianya V. J. I. Uchendu (1950)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Temporary Occupation Licence issued under Crown Lands (Temporary Occupation) Regulations—Purported Partition—Correct judgment based on wrong reasons will not be interfered with–Rights of licensee expire at the expiration of one year—Distinction between temporary occupation licence and tenancy from year to year—Court will not issue order which is unenforceable.


The appellant was the holder of a temporary occupation licence issued under the Crown Lands (Temporary Occupation) Regulations. The trial Judge found that there had been a partition in 1934. This Court held that the so-called partition in 1934 had no legal validity.

Appellant’s Counsel argued that because the trial Judge based his judgment on his incorrect finding the judgment could not stand. The question of the rights of a holder of a temporary occupation licence were also fully canvassed. By a lease dated the 7th October, 1945, the Resident leased the plot to the respondent and the appellant’s claim was for an order compelling the respondent to transfer the plot to him (the appellant).


The judgment of the trial Court was correct and could not be disturbed because it was based on a misdirection.

Held further, that a temporary occupation licence is not analogous to a tenancy from year to year. All rights under a temporary occupation licence automatically expire at the end of a year and, thereafter, the licence has no legal interest. On the 7th October, 1945, when the Resident granted a lease to the respondent, all rights of the appellant had ceased. The Resident was perfectly entitled at that date to grant a lease to anybody.

See also  Seedi V. Commissioner Of Police (1946) LJR-WACA

Held further, that a Court of law will not issue an order which is unenforceable. The respondent could not transfer the plot without the Governor’s consent. The Court cannot compel the Governor to give his consent and, therefore, it should not make an Order which the respondent might not be able tp carry out.

Appeal dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *