By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi SAN, FCIArb. (U.K). Contributor: Olugbade Johnson
INTRODUCTION
Property ownership remains one of the most significant indicators of wealth, status, and stability in Nigeria. Land is not merely a physical asset but a symbol of identity, lineage, and economic power. However, as families grow, businesses expand, and investments diversify, land ownership structures have evolved beyond sole proprietorship. One such form is joint ownership, where two or more persons share rights and interests in the same property.
UNDERSTANDING JOINT OWNERSHIP
Joint ownership according to Tobi JSC in Osuji v Ekeocha, presupposes ownership of property by more than one person or by a group of persons.[1] Each owner has an identifiable interest, though not necessarily in equal shares, depending on the nature of the ownership. Under Nigerian law, joint ownership generally arises in three main ways:
By agreement: through contractual arrangements or purchase.
By inheritance: where property devolves to multiple beneficiaries.
By operation of law: for instance, in matrimonial property or customary family land.
The most common forms of co-ownership recognised in Nigerian property law (largely derived from English common law) are joint tenancy, tenancy in common, and family property. The distinction between them is fundamental to understanding the rights and obligations of co-owners.
FORMS OF JOINT OWNERSHIP
1. Joint Tenancy
A joint tenancy exists where co-owners hold property under the same title, at the same time, and with equal interest and possession.[2] The hallmark of this relationship is the right of survivorship (jus accrescendi) which means that upon the death of one joint tenant, their interests automatically passes to the surviving co-owners.[3] The property, therefore, does not form part of the deceased’s estate for inheritance purposes. While this arrangement promotes continuity and simplicity, it may cause disputes among heirs who expect inheritance rights.
2. TENANCY IN COMMON
In contrast, tenancy in common allows co-owners to hold distinct but undivided shares in a property.[4] Unlike joint tenancy, there is no right of survivorship. When one co-owner dies, their share passes to their heirs or as directed by their will. This form of ownership is common among business partners or family members who contribute unequally to the acquisition of property.
3. FAMILY PROPERTY
Family property is a unique form of joint ownership deeply rooted in Nigerian customary law. It arises when property, usually land, belongs collectively to a family unit rather than any individual member. The property is held in trust by the family head and managed for the benefit of all family members both present and future. The concept of family property was clearly articulated in Ekpendu v. Erika,[5] where the court affirmed that such land cannot be alienated by the family head without the consent of the principal members. Every member of the family has a usufructua ry right i.e. the right to use and enjoy the property, though they cannot dispose of it individually.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING JOINT OWNERSHIP IN NIGERIA
The legal basis for joint ownership in Nigeria can be found in a combination of statutory, customary, and common law principles.
1. STATUTORY LAW
The Land Use Act (LUA), 1978 remains the cornerstone of land law in Nigeria.[6] It vests all land in each state in the Governor, who holds it in trust for the people.[7] However, individuals and entities can obtain rights of occupancy either statutory or customary. These rights can be jointly held by multiple parties. Additionally, the Property and Conveyancing Law (PCL) applicable in some states,[8] and the Conveyancing Act 1881,[9] which influences property law in other jurisdictions, provide frameworks for creating, transferring, and managing joint ownership interests.
2. CUSTOMARY LAW
In many communities, land is owned collectively by families or communities under customary tenure systems. Here, the family head and principal members hold land in trust for the family. No individual can ordinarily sell or alienate family land without the consent of other members. This form of joint ownership, though traditional, continues to generate disputes especially when customary practices conflict with statutory provisions or modern business practices.
3. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Nigerian courts have played a key role in clarifying the nature and implications of joint ownership. For instance, in Adeniran v. Alao,[10] the Supreme Court emphasised that the intention of parties determines whether a co-ownership is a joint tenancy or tenancy in common. Courts often rely on the wording of conveyance documents, conduct of parties, and surrounding circumstances to make this determination.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS IN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
1. SALE OR TRANSFER OF JOINTLY OWNED PROPERTY
In transactions involving joint ownership, consent is critical. Where property is jointly owned, no single co-owner can unilaterally sell or transfer the entire property without the consent of others. Doing so may render the sale void or voidable, depending on the form of ownership.
2. INHERITANCE AND SUCCESSION
Inheritance issues are a common source of conflict in joint ownership. In a joint tenancy, the right of survivorship overrides inheritance laws the deceased’s interest does not devolve to their heirs. However, in a tenancy in common, the deceased’s share forms part of their estate and can be inherited. Where customary law applies, family land cannot be freely devised by will without the consent of other family members, as reaffirmed in Ekpendu v. Erika.[11]
3. PARTITIONING AND DISSOLUTION
When co-owners wish to sever their joint ownership for instance, due to disagreements or the desire for separate ownership they may apply for partition. Partitioning divides the property into distinct portions corresponding to each owner’s share. Under the Partition Acts (1882 and 1893), applicable through received English law, Nigerian courts can order partition or sale of the property and distribute proceeds among co-owners. Severance may also occur voluntarily through mutual agreement or by conduct inconsistent with joint ownership, such as a co-owner selling or mortgaging their interest.
4. RISK OF DISPUTES
Joint ownership often leads to disputes concerning management, income sharing, maintenance costs, or unauthorized sale. Poor documentation and lack of legal advice exacerbate these risks. The absence of clear agreements specifying the rights and obligations of each owner can result in prolonged litigation and financial loss.
BEST PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To minimize risks in joint property arrangements, the following measures are recommended:
Clear Documentation: Ownership documents should explicitly state whether the ownership is a joint tenancy or tenancy in common and define the respective shares of each owner.
Legal Counsel: Parties should engage qualified legal practitioners to draft, review, and register property documents.
Consent Procedures: Any sale, lease, or mortgage involving jointly owned property must be done with the consent of all owners.
Written Agreements: Co-owners should have a written agreement outlining management responsibilities, dispute resolution mechanisms, and conditions for severance.
Proper Registration: All conveyances and transfers should be registered with the appropriate land registry to ensure enforceability and public notice.
CONCLUSION
Joint ownership of property in Nigeria, though advantageous in facilitating collective investment and inheritance management, is fraught with potential legal pitfalls. The distinctions between joint tenancy and tenancy in common must be clearly understood to prevent avoidable conflicts.
REFERENCE
(2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81 at 126, paras. A–B. ↑
Olowofoyeku v AG Oyo State (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 132) 369. There, Akpata JCA held that, ‘joint tenants have unity of title, unity of commencement of title, unity of interest, so as in law to have equal shares in the joint estates, unity of possession, as well as every part of the whole, and right of survivorship.’ ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ugbene v. Ugbene & Ors. (2016) LPELR-42110 (CA) 71–78, paras. E– C. ↑
(1959) 4 FSC 79. ↑
LUA 1978. ↑
Ibid, s. 1. ↑
PCL 1959. ↑
Conveyancing Act 18881. ↑
(1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 223) 350. ↑
(1959) 4 FSC 79. ↑
In this article