BluntCrazeMan:
From @General_Oluchi on X-(Formerly-Twitter)


..
.


Source:
https://twitter.com/General_Oluchi/status/1694899224083677230

Puss360:
Irrespective of who likes to play with it or not, whom the toy belongs to, should be given back the toy...
Let them know the meaning of ownership and possession... Once something belongs to someone, it doesn't matter if the person uses it or not, the fact remains that it belongs to that person...
And as parent, try not to cause discord unknowingly between your children by favouring one with toy and not the other...
Let each of them have theirs....
If they are twins, buy thesame...
If they aren't, buy something different and let them know which belongs to them ....
The cries of the respondent isn't a prerequisite to possess that which doesn't belong to them!!!!

Dtruthspeaker:


The correct decision is that the toy should be granted to the respondent because a toy is meant to be played with and the petitioner has by his/her conduct showed that she is not interested in the toy.

Secondly, by The Law of unlawful deprivation and waste, she is therefore deprived from withholding possession of the toy, on the ground that The Law shall not allow a wrong to be done.

Thus, the honorable court must thereby order that the defendant be perpetually restrained from taking the toy from the respondent.

BluntCrazeMan:
Let us tweak the question a little bit.

1. The siblings are now grown.
2. “The toy” changes to “two plots of land”.
3. “Playing with the toy” changes to “cultivating on the land” - (or any useful temporary activity on the land which can easily be removed by the owner within a day or two)
4. “The Mom” changes to “The Judge at a high court”.


The Petitioner is the owner of the land, and the Respondent is the person (a very close relative to the Petitioner) who is cultivating the land without the notice of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner wants everything that was done on the land by the Respondent to be removed, and if possible, return the land to the fallowed state it was before he “trespassed” on it.

The Petitioner is not ready to do anything with the land at the moment, not even to cultivate the land.
He prefers the land fallowed, and overgrown with bushes and thorns.


If you happen to be the judge, what would be your verdict.??

BluntCrazeMan:
From @General_Oluchi on X-(Formerly-Twitter)


..
.


Source:
https://twitter.com/General_Oluchi/status/1694899224083677230

BluntCrazeMan:
Let us tweak the question a little bit.

1. The siblings are now grown.
2. “The toy” changes to “two plots of land”.
3. “Playing with the toy” changes to “cultivating on the land” - (or any useful temporary activity on the land which can easily be removed by the owner within a day or two)
4. “The Mom” changes to “The Judge at a high court”.

The Petitioner is the owner of the land, and the Respondent is the person (a very close relative to the Petitioner) who is cultivating the land without the notice of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner wants everything that was done on the land by the Respondent to be removed, and if possible, return the land to the fallowed state it was before he “trespassed” on it.

The Petitioner is not ready to do anything with the land at the moment, not even to cultivate the land.
He prefers the land fallowed, and overgrown with bushes and thorns.

If you happen to be the judge, what would be your verdict.??

Cc...
IconicR, Fergie001, lhordspy, Lotanna2, Penguin2, Racoon, LegendHero, Litigator, Helinues.

BluntCrazeMan:
Let us tweak the question a little bit.

1. The siblings are now grown.
2. “The toy” changes to “two plots of land”.
3. “Playing with the toy” changes to “cultivating on the land” - (or any useful temporary activity on the land which can easily be removed by the owner within a day or two)
4. “The Mom” changes to “The Judge at a high court”.


The Petitioner is the owner of the land, and the Respondent is the person (a very close relative to the Petitioner) who is cultivating the land without the notice of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner wants everything that was done on the land by the Respondent to be removed, and if possible, return the land to the fallowed state it was before he “trespassed” on it.

The Petitioner is not ready to do anything with the land at the moment, not even to cultivate the land.
He prefers the land fallowed, and overgrown with bushes and thorns.


If you happen to be the judge, what would be your verdict.??


Cc...
IconicR, Fergie001, lhordspy, Lotanna2, Racoon, LegendHero, Litigator, Helinues.

Dtruthspeaker:


Now the situation is different because of adulthood.

And now mumsi (whether judge or baker) is still the owner of the property and unless she has clearly transferred ownership to the Petitioner by the petitioner is still not the owner of the property, whether car or land.

And both petitioner and respondent can use the property once they have permission from mumsi.

And when mumsi.says the petitioner can use the property, she can also say and she also says that the respondent too can use it also, unless she precludes him.

Thus, unless the petitioner has been granted ownership, he has equal rights to use the property,split 50/50 as practicable.

That is the correct judgment.

BluntCrazeMan:
Read the TOY-STORY again bro.
The mom clearly said that “THE TOY BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER..”

BluntCrazeMan:

She also said that she was in “Possession” of the toy, pending the time she gave her verdict.

This means that the Toy doesn't belong to her.

Dtruthspeaker:


That is a gift not a grant. And as you already know, gifts are always revocable at the pleasure of the owner and giftor.



How did it land in her possession?

Because, of her power of being the giftor. The gift can always be taken back as some men have done to their exes or father in laws have done to their sons in law or parents to their children.

BluntCrazeMan:
From @General_Oluchi on X-(Formerly-Twitter)


BUY SAME TOY OF DIFFERENT COLOUR FOR THE ONE THAT LOVES PLAYING WITH THE TOY


..
.


Source:
https://twitter.com/General_Oluchi/status/1694899224083677230

BluntCrazeMan:
These guys can never ever disappoint.

Penguin2:

I think the owner of a property reserves the right to decide what happens to his property no matter how unreasonable anyone might think it is.

It’s like you owning a house that you don’t live in, and it’s being ravaged by cobwebs. No one has the right to park into the house without your permission and argue that he just wants to be helping to keep the house clean until you are ready to pack in.

Same thing with the land. If the owner of a piece of land thinks what’s best for his property is for it to lie fallow and be overgrown by bushes and infested by dangerous reptiles, no one under the sun has right to argue to the contrary; maybe except the government (when it’s for the good of the greater number of the members of the society).

Dtruthspeaker:


You just ruined your beautiful statement of Law with bold.

And see how you consent to the so called governments to break The Law and violate your rights? Then you start saying that there is no justice and law whereas, it is you people who have consented that other people can violate your rights and break The Law.

And that is why we have bad governments, injustice and a corrupt and a corruptible judiciary. (Yes i said it! that is why even though lawyers are very many only a very meagre few are here openly speaking, because of course how can they say the truth only to defend a lie tomorrow?)

Even the government has no right to touch personal property.

Lord Denning on freedom under Law

“‘The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.’ So be it– unless he has justification by Law.”

Penguin2:

Lol!

I understand my dear.

It’s just sometimes you can’t help but factor in Nigerian reality.

Dtruthspeaker:


"THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH"

Penguin2:

I think the owner of a property reserves the right to decide what happens to his property no matter how unreasonable anyone might think it is.

It’s like you owning a house that you don’t live in, and it’s being ravaged by cobwebs. No one has the right to park into the house without your permission and argue that he just wants to be helping to keep the house clean until you are ready to pack in.

Same thing with the land. If the owner of a piece of land thinks what’s best for his property is for it to lie fallow and be overgrown by bushes and infested by dangerous reptiles, no one under the sun has right to argue to the contrary; maybe except the government (when it’s for the good of the greater number of the members of the society).

Dtruthspeaker:


A real-eyeity caused by the fact that people do not know their Rights and neither do they know the great importance of doing "just-is".

If just-is was done/is done, 90% of Nigeria's regular problems will go away. That is what so called developed countries have figured out.

No nation can survive without just-is, not to talk of even growing, that one is impossible!

litigator:



Look up the doctrine of laches and acquiescence. It's a defence to trespass. Now the question of indolence might come to aid the Respondent. But the question is how long was the Respondent trespassing on the land?

Was there a caveat or notice to the trespasser?

Ordinarily, it is trite law that he who owns the land, owns everything on it, above or underneath. There is a Latin maxim for it. But it's not always straight forward. There are also viable defense to trespass that are recognisable in law.

My point is that your question is not straight forward with a real life scenario or a law school exam problem question. It's an incomplete question. Hence, the general and shallow answer I gave.

Hope this helps. Shalom


Let me do a topic on trespass and possible defence to trespass using decided cases. This might help educate our ignorance.

BluntCrazeMan:

When there are lots of relative truths, which are seen through many lenses and from different perspectives,, any conclusion could be arrived at. And any judgement would be pronounced.
But just-is might not be done.

BluntCrazeMan:
(emboldened)..

That would be very nice

litigator:


https://www.nairaland.com/7817938/legal-implications-trespass-what-need

BluntCrazeMan:
Thanks so much

Dtruthspeaker:


A real-eyeity caused by the fact that people do not know their Rights and neither do they know the great importance of doing "just is".

If just is was done/is done 90% of Nigeria's regular problems will go away. That is what so called developed countries have figured out.

No nation can survive without just is, not to talk of even growing, that one is impossible!

Penguin2:

In summary: Rule of Law.

It’s what Peter Obi always calls “intangible assets.” ...

Dtruthspeaker:


Ofcourse you should know that the law Obi has in mind is the constitution and therefore, he would still have the same results other kings have had.

Penguin2:

The Constitution has enough provisions to make this country work if its letters are followed.

The problem over the years is that those who meant to enforce the law pick and choose which to enforce and which to overlook, depending on who is involved.

So, I refuse to agree that the constitution is the problem per se. But even if it is, a serious president who is interested in the rule of law would see to its expedited amendment to accommodate the reforms he wants to implement.

So, I refuse to align with your submission.

Dtruthspeaker:


I understand why you say this but that is because you like every other person in the world like and enjoy the idea of holding the world in your hands and being your own god and ruling your own life and self.

And you do not want any person whether God or man ruling you.

Thus you like the idea and the lie sold to you that you can rule yourselves, since nobody wants anybody ruling them, so this sounds like a very good arrangement and compromise.

Therefore, in line with that compromise, you like the idea of making your own law for yourselves and doing whatever you please without any one to sanction and control and stop you.

And guess what when you make your own law, it never lasts. it is weak and can not accomplish what you all want from it.

Eg Using.your own house as an example saying "every adult including you, your mother, father, uncle, cousin agree that everyone must be in the house by 9pm," how long will your pact and agreement (constitution) last?

You already know that it would break down and one by one each individual will disregard and cast it aside. And the only way to enforce compliance is by the use of harm and violence (assault/battery) and death (murder). Which means you have to break The Law to enforce your law.

And that is the flaw and inadequacy and injustice inherent in all man made laws (constitutions or whatever name they choose to call it). And why it would never ever solve man's problems nor guarantee just is, equity and equality. And we would always live in the world as rightly captured by George Orwell in "Animal Farm" and more men are always going to be more equal than others.

Meanwhile, This is the pronouncement of Law

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

Penguin2:

You wrote quite a lot.

But what I took away from your piece is that you have huge reservations for man made laws; to you, they will never solve man’s problems.

And that leads me to ask, what do you then suggest? What’s your alternative to man made laws/constitution?

Or do you suggest we go back to Hobbesian State of Nature?

Dtruthspeaker:


No! not Hobbs opinion but the other option i believe you know and you can glean from my posts.

However, it cannot be resorted to as people have become fixed in their ways and actually do like the injustice. Their only complain is whenthey are the receivers of it but nevertheless, even when its their turn to do justice, they would not do it. And neither would the powerholding and violent men allow it to be done.

Just for the sake of answering you, i hereby state that solution is The Law which man did not make to wit Natural Law! And actually the constitution and all the laws men make are all stealing and taking power from Natural Law, to wit The Law of good relations with thy neighbor aka "customary law", law of the familiars (familee, family) contract and law of the off-fences, trespss, what is called civil and criminal law)

These threads arose when i was searching then when I was trying to find what was causing the injustices in the "law" despite all the effort and pronoucemernts meant to prevent injustice.

https://www.nairaland.com/5846357/mans-laws-court-orji-uzor

https://www.nairaland.com/6989896/lawyers-not-deceit