AGHENGHEN & ORS. v. WAGHEROGHOR & ORS. (1974) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that occupies a towering position in African jurisprudence on customary land tenure, compulsory acquisition, and compensation. Decided at a critical moment in Nigeria’s post-colonial legal development, the case clarified the legal status of customary tenants and firmly entrenched equitable principles in the distribution of compensation arising from compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, particularly oil exploration.
Background and Factual Context AGHENGHEN & ORS. v. WAGHEROGHOR & ORS. (1974)
The dispute arose between two neighbouring communities in present-day Delta State. The appellants (Eruemukohwarien Village) had, from time immemorial, been granted portions of land by the respondents (Effuruntor Village) under customary tenure, subject to the payment of tributes. Over generations, the appellants occupied the land, cultivated it, and planted economic trees.
When Shell-BP Petroleum Development Company compulsorily acquired the land for oil exploration, compensation became payable. The central controversy was not ownership of radical title, which lay with the respondents, but whether the appellants, as occupants and cultivators of the land, were entitled to a share of the compensation.
Procedural History and Trial Court ErrorAGHENGHEN & ORS. v. WAGHEROGHOR & ORS. (1974)
At the trial, both parties agreed to rely exclusively on documentary evidence—namely, two previous judgments between the same parties over the same land—without calling oral evidence. Despite this agreement, the High Court judge re-examined and re-evaluated evidence from the earlier cases and concluded that the appellants were mere licensees, not customary tenants, and therefore not entitled to compensation.
On appeal, the Supreme Court strongly condemned this approach, holding that a trial judge has no authority to go behind or reinterpret earlier judgments tendered and agreed upon by the parties, nor to sit in judgment over decisions of courts of coordinate or superior jurisdiction.
Nature of Customary Tenancy under Nigerian Law
A central contribution of the case lies in its authoritative exposition of customary tenancy. The Supreme Court held that a customary tenant holds a legally recognisable interest in land, though less than absolute ownership. Such an interest includes long possession, exclusive use, payment of tribute, and the right to enjoy the land in perpetuity subject to good behaviour.
The Court rejected the importation of English land law concepts such as licences into customary land tenure. It affirmed that customary tenancies may be granted to individuals as well as communities and that once the incidents of tenure are satisfied, the interest is protected by law and is, in practice, nearly indefeasible.
Rights of Customary Tenants upon Compulsory Acquisition.
The Supreme Court decisively answered the question of entitlement to compensation. It held that customary tenants, being lawful occupants with valuable possessory interests, are entitled to compensation when land is compulsorily acquired. To deny them compensation would be unjust, as it is they who lose their homes, farms, and means of livelihood, while the radical owners retain only a reversionary interest.
The Court emphasised that possession and long enjoyment under customary law confer real and enforceable rights deserving of protection.
Equitable Jurisdiction and the Principle of Apportionment
A major jurisprudential breakthrough in the case was the Court’s affirmation that apportionment of compensation is not alien to customary land disputes. Even if customary law is silent on apportionment, Nigerian courts, as courts of law and equity, are empowered to apply equitable principles to achieve justice.
Relying on earlier authorities, the Supreme Court held that compensation should be shared fairly between radical owners and customary tenants, having regard to the nature and value of their respective interests.
In this case, equity demanded that the customary tenants receive a larger share.
Final Decision and Enduring LegacyThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and ordered that the compensation be apportioned two-thirds to the customary tenants and one-third to the radical owners.
The enduring legacy of Aghenghen v. Wagheroghor lies in its robust protection of customary land rights, its rejection of rigid colonial land law analogies, and its elevation of equity as a living force in African land jurisprudence. The case remains a cornerstone authority on customary tenancy, compulsory acquisition, and compensation in Nigeria and across jurisdictions influenced by African customary law.
IDUNDUN v. OKUMAGBA (1976)Definitive Guide to Proof of Land Ownership in Nigeria
Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (1921) – Communal Land Rights
EKPENDU & ORS. v. ERIKA & ORS. (1959)Family Land Law Explained
EKPENDU & ORS. v. ERIKA & ORS. (1959)Family Land Law Explained
You can check more cases using the website search bar