Back
1918 Supreme(SC) 71
Privy Council
Lord Scott Dickson, Lord Sumner , Lord Atkinson, Lord Dunedin, Justice Earl Loreburn, JJ.
In re Southern Rhodesia -Appellant
Versus
Matter specially referred to the Judicial Committee -Resopndent
Decided On : 29-07-1918
natives, Stuart Bevan, Leslie Scott , Southern Rhodesia, Legislative , Phear, J.W.M. Holmes , Price and Co., Morgan, Natives, Charles Russell and Co., Crown, F. Russell, Chance, Sons , Hawksley, Coward , British South Africa Company, Crown, Branson, Cunliffe , Gordon Hewart, Frederick Smith, P.O. Lawrence
Conquest of territory with tribal land rights (not private property) vests ownership in the sovereign. An administrator authorized to dispose of such land for reimbursement of public expenditures does not acquire proprietary title to the land.
Headnote:(A) Judicial Committee Act, 1833 - Section 4 - Royal Charter - Orders in Council - Ownership of unalienated lands - Conquest of territory - Rights of aboriginal tribes - Right to reimbursement for administrative expenditure - Distinction between administrative authority and proprietary title - Where a territory is conquered and a new administrative system is established by the sovereign, tribal or communal land rights that do not amount to private property are extinguished. The sovereign assumes ownership of public lands, and any authority granted to an administrator to dispose of such lands does not, by itself, confer proprietary title. (Paras 15, 20, 27)
(B) Concessions - Nature of grants from native sovereigns - A concession granting the right to allot land in the name of a sovereign is a personal contract and does not constitute a conveyance of an estate or interest in land; therefore, it cannot serve as a title deed to unalienated lands. (Paras 21-23)
(C) Agency and Reimbursement - When a commercial entity is authorized to administer a territory for the benefit of the grantor and expends its own funds for public administration, it is entitled to reimbursement from the assets or revenues of that administration. This right to reimbursement is an incident of the relationship between the principal and the authorized agent and does not vest dominium or estate in the land. (Paras 28-31)
Facts of the case:
A commercial company, incorporated by royal charter and acting under subsequent orders in council, administered a conquered territory. The company granted land to settlers and incurred significant administrative costs, meeting deficits from its own resources. A dispute arose regarding whether the remaining unalienated lands were the private property of the company, the property of the original native inhabitants, or vested in the sovereign.
Findings of Court:
The unalienated lands are not the property of the company, nor do the native inhabitants retain ownership as their rights were not of the nature of private property. The sovereign, by establishing a system of administration and land grants, assumed ownership of the public lands. The company's power to dispose of these lands was an administrative authority exercised on behalf of the sovereign.
Issues: Whether the unalienated lands in the territory were vested in the company as private property, whether the original native inhabitants retained ownership, or whether the lands belonged to the sovereign following the conquest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that tribal land rights, being communal rather than private, were extinguished upon conquest and the subsequent exercise of sovereign rights. The company's occupation and the concessions it held did not grant proprietary title. By appointing an administrator and sanctioning a land system, the sovereign became the owner of the land. The company, acting as an agent, was entitled to apply proceeds from land sales to reimburse its proper administrative expenditures, but this right to reimbursement did not equate to ownership of the land.
Result: The court affirmed that ownership of unalienated lands is not vested in the company, but held that the company is entitled to apply revenues from such lands to reimburse administrative expenses, and to look to the sovereign for such reimbursement if the administration is terminated.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
sovereignty
- conquest
- royal charters
-
sovereignty
-
property law
-
land ownership
- native title
- concessions
- prescription and occupation
-
land ownership
-
administrative law
-
agency
- reimbursement of expenses
- administrative assets
-
agency
Lord Sumner :-
In view of the unusual character and general importance of the questions involved in this reference, their Lordships will state, publicly and fully, their reasons for the Report, which they propose humbly to lay before His Majesty. It will be convenient to give some account of the history of the matter before coming to the particular points in controversy.
Under ordinances and regulations having the force of law and with the approval and assent of the Crown, the Company - the British South Africa Company, to give it once for all its full title - has for many years past granted land and interests in land in Southern Rhodesia to numerous alienees. In a few cases it has purported to make grants to itself, but these may be disregarded. It is conceded, on the one hand, that by so doing it acquires and enjoys no further or better title than it had before, and, on the other hand, that under the Company"s grants in their favour other parties acquire and enjoy a fall and indefeasible title. There still remains unalienated a vast area of land which consists partly of native reserves, partly of land in the Company"s own occupation for ranching or other purposes, partly of country altogether waste and unsettled. It is to this area, known as "the unalienated lands," as to which the Company has never granted to others estates or interests therein" and so long as it does not so grant them, that the present case refers.
The Company was incorporated by Royal Charter, on 29th October, 1889, and in accordance with clause 25 a deed of settlement was subsequently executed, which further defined the objects and purposes of the Company. It was a commercial enterprise, but among its objects were the following :-
"To undertake and carry on the Government or administration of any territories, districts or places in Africa, and generally to exercise all rights and powers granted by or exercisable under the Charter, and particularly to improve, develop, and cultivate any lands included within the territories of the Company, to settle any such territories and lands, and to aid and promote immigration, to grant lands for terms of years or in perpetuity, and either absolutely or by way of mortgage or otherwise."
It was provided further :-
"Article 101 (2) the directors shall, as far as practicable, cause the accounts of the Company in relation to its African territories and property to be so kept that the cost of administration and police and the revenue, if any, derived therefrom shall appear separately from receipts in respect of commercial operations."
There is no doubt that, from the first, of all the lands included within the territories of the Company, none were of more importance or of more immediate interest than what is now called Southern Rhodesia.
Before 1898 this country consisted of two regions, not very clearly distinguished from one another, called Matabele land and Mashonaland, and of these countries in and before 1893 Lobengula was the paramount chief, as his father Umsiligas or Moselikatse had (?) before him. Both were chiefs or kings not so much of a determinate territory as of their peoples or tribes. Thus, in his treaty of friendship and alliance in 1836 with the then Governor of the Cape Colony, Umsiligas is described as "King of the Abaqua Zooloo or Qua Machoban," and the treaty of 1888 describes his son, Lobengula, as "ruler of the tribe known as Amandabele, together with the Mashona and the Makalaka tributaries of the same." As a matter of right the relation of the Mashonas to the Matabele was perhaps ambiguous; as a matter of fast it was mere sufferance and subjection, but questions of this kind are now immaterial, for about 1888 Her Majesty Queen Victoria recognized Lobengula as sovereign of both peoples. The British Government stated to the Portuguese Government that he was "an independent king," "undisputed ruler over Matabeleland and Mashonaland," who had not parted with his sovereignty, though his territory was under B
