Kola Tenancy

There is a settled line of authorities to the effect that the domestic or internal affairs of a political party are not Justiciable, that the Courts will not dabble into the membership of a party or who it chooses to sponsor for an election. See: Onuoha Vs Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; P.D.P Vs Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85; APGA Vs Anyanwu (2014)1-2 SC (pt. 1) 1; Emenike Vs P.D.P (2011) LPELR 1975 2(CA).
However, in making its choice, a political party must act within the law and must comply with its own constitution and guidelines. Prior to 2006 political parties acted with impunity in the selection, sponsorship and substitution of candidates for election.

SHUAIBU LAU V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP] &

There is, however, the other question whether the nature of interest conferred on a Kola tenant is an interest of inheritance. Being an interest in a customary tenancy, the question whether such interest is inheritable and in what particular way or by which particular person must depend on the particular custom governing the Kola tenancy; and this generally is a matter of evidence [see also Kamanda Bongay v Macaulay (1932 1 W.A.C.A. 225 a case dealing with right of inheritance and forfeiture of land in Sierra Leone in which the holder had mere usufructuary right for the period of his life time]. It is, therefore, difficult to say that, co ipso, a customary tenancy is an interest of inheritance.

Kola tenancy in the main has the features of most customary tenancies; it creates a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties to it, and it certainly is more than a mere occupational licence which confers no interest in land. Like most customary tenancies, Kola tenancy, confers to the grantee full rights of possession but it confers no more than a mere possessory right i.e. a right of occupation of the tenant. This is borne out in the definition of this type of tenancy as set out in section 2 of the Kola Tenancies Act No 25 of 1935 (now appearing as the Kola Tenancies Law Cap. 69 in the 1968 edition of the Laws of Eastern Nigeria) which reads:
"a right to the use and occupation of any land which is enjoyed by any native in virtue of a Kola or other token payment made by such native or any predecessor-in-title in virtue of a grant for which no payment in money or in kind was exacted." Obviously, from the above definition (i.e. Statutory and under Customary law) the position is that once it is admitted that property (or a parcel of land) is held under a Kola tenancy, the one thing which the holder cannot do under customary law is absolute or entire alienation of the same. [see also Foster-Sutton F.C.J. in Daniel v. Daniel 1 F.S.C. 50 at 51].