“At the beginning of their arguments the chief complaint which the appellants made was that the trial judge was wrong to non-suit the claim for damages, and that he ought to have awarded a sum by way of damages based on the arrears of unpaid tribute, but the respondents pointed out that tribute had not been paid since 1920, and that the judge had found that the quantum of tribute when it was last paid had not been satisfactorily proved. It turned out that what the appellants were most concerned to secure was that the Court should fix a suitable sum as tribute and direct that it should be the sum payable in future, but the Court has no power to do this on a claim for the common law remedy of damages, and if the tribute payable for the future is to be fixed it must be as a condition of relief from forfeiture, either in addition to or instead of the “fine” of 50. A precedent for taking this course is to be found in the decision of the Full Court in Uwani v. Akom (1928) 8 N.L.R. 19 and we think it preferable to the imposition of a lump-sum “fine”, such as was imposed in the earlier proceedings mentioned in the judgment of Martindale, J., in Etim v. Eke (1941) 16 N.L.R. 43, since the payment of a fixed sum annually will help to remind both the landlords and the tenants of the nature of their interests in the land, and if the amount payable is fixed now it may save both parties the expense of a third action at law.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
