¹ [1974] 3 S.C. 15.

² 4th ed., London, 1971, 154.

³ (1889). See Elias, op. cit., 155.

⁴ Emphasis supplied.

^{page 126 note 1} Ibid., 156.

^{page 126 note 2} [1957] W.R.N.L.R. 55.

^{page 126 note 3} Ibid., at 56.

^{page 126 note 4} James, R. W., Modern Nigerian land law, University of Ife Press, 1973, 237.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 5} (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 487.

^{page 126 note 6} Ibid., at 490.

^{page 127 note 1} Op cit., 244, n. 72.

^{page 127 note 2} (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 487, at 491. 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1), 452.

^{page 127 note 3} 1974 3 S.C. 15.

^{page 127 note 4} Ibid., at 31, 465 respectively.

^{page 128 note 1} Reported by Ollennu, Principles of customary land law in Ghana, London, 1962, 173.

^{page 128 note 2} Ibid., at 174. Expenses here must refer to incidental expenses.

^{page 128 note 3} [1970] 1 All N.L.R. 203.

^{page 129 note 1} See p. 127, n. 5 above.

^{page 129 note 2} B. O. Nwabueze, Nigerian land law, Enugu, 1972, 278.

^{page 130 note 1} Leragun v. Funlayo (1956) W.R.N.L.R. 167; Okpowagha v. Ewhedoma, above, p. 128, n. 3.

^{page 130 note 2} Ollennu, op. cit., 95.

^{page 130 note 3} See generally, R. O. Adegboye, “Procuring loan through pledging of cocoa trees” Journal of the Historical Association of Nigeria, 12, 1 & 2, December, 1966.

^{page 130 note 4} See above, p. 125, n. 3.

^{page 130 note 5} [1957] W.R.N.L.R. 55.

^{page 130 note 6} See Fourmaids Ltd. v. Dudley Marshall {Properties) Ltd. [1957] Ch. 317; [1957] 2 All E.R. 35.

^{page 131 note 1} The principle holds good notwithstanding the fact that the pledgor was fully aware of the pledgee's activities. Ollennu, op. cit., 100. At page 102, the learned author explained further: “This principle that the pledgee who improves the pledged land does so at his own expense and cannot be the owner of the land by virtue of his improvement, is in consonance with the equitable doctrine of acquiescence and with the customary principle of acquiescence.… Acquiescence can never arise where a person knowing quite well that he had no title to land and that he has only a limited interest in it spends money to improve it in a manner which he knows he is not entitled to do. In such a case he cannot claim the benefit of the principle.”

^{page 131 note 2} [1970] I All N.L.R 203.

^{page 131 note 3} 1956 W.R.N.L.R. 55.

^{page 131 note 4} Ibid., at 56.

^{page 132 note 1} See Dapaah v. Poku (above, p. 128, n. 1), where it was held that a pledgee could redeem at any time notwithstanding express agreement that redemption be postponed for 13 years.

^{page 132 note 2} C. O. Olawoye, Title to land in Nigeria, 1974, 50.

^{page 132 note 3} (1974) 3 S.C. 13, at 33.