Lopez v. Lopez (1924) was a historic Lagos Full Court decision that examined whether female members of a Yoruba family as daughters or descendants of daughters can claim rights in family land or seek partition under native law and custom. While the Divisional Court had earlier ruled that females cannot inherit land, the Full Court rejected this rigid view and clarified the true legal position.
This case remains authoritative on the rights of women in family property, the limits of customary inheritance, and the conditions under which courts will order partition of family land.
FACTS OF THE CASE IN LOPEZ V. LOPEZ (1924).
The plaintiffs and defendants were children and grandchildren of Anthony Lopez, owner of No. 43 Bamgboshe Street, Lagos.
The plaintiffs were female descendants – daughters or children of daughters.The defendants included the surviving sons.
Plaintiffs sought a partition of the property.Defendants argued that under native law and custom, females cannot inherit land and therefore cannot demand partition.
The Divisional Court agreed with the defendants, relying on an old customary rule that “females cannot inherit land.”Plaintiffs appealed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN LOPEZ V. LOPEZ (1924).
1.Whether females have rights in family property under Lagos native law and custom.
3.Whether a female member can seek partition of family land.
3.Whether the plaintiffs disclosed any grounds for court-ordered partition.
4.The limits of judicial interference in the management of family property.
HELD (FULL COURT DECISION IN IN LOPEZ V. LOPEZ 1924)
The Full Court (Combe C.J., Van der Meulen J., and Tew J.) dismissed the appeal, but not because females lack rights.Instead, the appeal failed because the plaintiffs did not show sufficient grounds for a court-ordered partition.
However, the Court strongly rejected the Divisional Court’s view that females have no rights in family land.
KEY JUDICIAL DICTA LOPEZ V. LOPEZ 1924)
Combe C.J. Held
“Both sons and daughters inherit certain rights in their father’s lands.”
and further:
“…females undoubtedly have rights and the Court must have jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to protect a female in the enjoyment of her rights.”
On Whether Daughters Have Equal Rights
The Court clarified the difference between male and female interests:
“In early times the rights of the daughters were not the same as those of the sons… however that may be, females undoubtedly have rights…”
Meaning: females have rights, but historically, these rights may be limited in nature.
On When Court May Order Partition
The Full Court recognized the possibility of partition for female members:
“I am by no means satisfied that in no circumstances could the Court order a partition of family land on the application of a female.”
and added:
“A case might arise in which an order of partition would be the only effective means of ensuring that a female and her issue shall live on her father’s lands without being disturbed…”
On Limits of Judicial Interference
The Court reaffirmed that:
“The Court will not interfere with the management of family property… unless reason for such interference is alleged and proved.”
Meaning: Family heads remain primary managers unless abuse, exclusion, or denial of rights is shown.
Why the Appeal Failed.
On this specific case, the Court said:
“No grounds were alleged which, if proved, would justify the Court in ordering a partition of the family land.”
And
“Plaintiffs themselves alleged that they continued to reside on the family land… therefore no interference was necessary.”
Thus, the fault lay not in their rights, but in their failure to show that their rights were being denied.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED IN LOPEZ V. LOPEZ (1924).
1.Females Have Recognised Rights in Family Property Under Native Law and Custom.
The Full Court expressly overturned the notion that females have no inheritance rights.Females, though often having limited rights, are still beneficial members of the family and entitled to the protection of the courts.
2. Partition of Family Land May Be Granted to Women in Proper Cases
The Court accepted that in proper circumstances, a woman can secure partition if that is the only way to protect her enjoyment and residence rights.
This is a landmark position supporting equitable relief based on need, protection, and fairness, not gender exclusion.
3.Courts Will Only Interfere with Family Land When Necessary
Interference occurs only when:the head of family denies a member’s rights,mismanages property, oracts prejudicially.
Since the plaintiffs were still residing on the property and alleged no denial of rights, partition was unnecessary.
Distinction Between Male and Female Rights Remains.
Although both have rights, historically:
Male children enjoy broader inheritance rights and control.
Female children have residence rights and limited proprietary interests.However, the Court emphasized that such limited rights are enforceable.
Ababio II v. Kweku Nsemfoo(1947) Full Report L.M.S.R
Yesufu Esan v. Faro (Chief Ojora)-1947 Full Summary L.M.S.R
In clear Summary,Mariana Lopez & Ors v Domingo Lopez & Ors (1924) stands as a landmark decision affirming that female members of a family do have enforceable rights in family land under Lagos native law and custom. While daughters may not always have equal inheritance rights as sons, their rights are nevertheless protected by the courts, including the possibility of seeking partition where necessary.
However, courts will only order partition when there is clear evidence of denial of rights or mismanagement not merely because female members desire division.
This case remains foundational in Nigerian property law, especially in matters involving:
family land,female rights,partition,native law and custom, and judicial intervention in customary land administration.
Equity & Trust LAW CASES & LECTURE NOTES
Land law/Property Law LAW CASES & LECTURE NOTES