ABSTRACT

This dissertation investigates the effectiveness of the protection of land title in Cameroon, a critical issue in a context where land disputes are recurrent and land security remains a key concern for individuals and institutions. Using the energetic method, this research examines both the normative and functional dimensions of land title protection, evaluating the legal framework and practical mechanisms that guarantee the stability and enforceability of land rights. The study reveals that land titles in Cameroon benefit from a dual mechanism of protection: administrative and judicial. The administrative protection encompasses safeguards implemented throughout the process of acquiring a land title, as well as protections derived from the legal effects of the title itself. These include the content and characteristics of the land title, which confer authenticity, opposability, and enforceability. The role of land registration services and administrative control during this phase ensures a first layer of protection aimed at preventing disputes before they arise.

On the other hand, judicial protection complements this administrative system. It operates through the intervention of civil and penal judges. The civil judge, relying on Article 544 of the Civil Code, upholds the attributes of the land title such as the right to use, enjoy, and dispose of the land. This judicial route allows landowners to seek redress for violations of their property rights. Additionally, the penal judge intervenes to repress grave infringements on land rights, especially in cases involving fraud, usurpation, or illegal occupation, thereby reinforcing the coercive power of land law. The study concludes that while this dual mechanism provides a relatively strong framework for protecting land titles in Cameroon, its effectiveness depends on institutional efficiency, accessibility of justice, and legal certainty. Strengthening these mechanisms particularly by enhancing transparency in land administration and ensuring judicial independence is essential for the full realization of land security.

sécurisation effective du foncier.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

‘’If a man owns land, the land owns him”[1]. This statement of Ralp Waldo Emerson best established the connection between a man to his land and vice-versa. The ownership of a safe piece of land is as important as food and water for subsistence. The ownership of own piece of land can open new avenues of progress and prosperity for the owner. Apart from shelter, a considerable piece of land can always be put into agriculture, lease, or commercial utility. So, we can see that land is one of the basic commodities which all human beings need in order to live a peaceful life on earth since it has diverse purposes.

All societies have a system to govern property right (movable or immovable object by nature) this is according to the respect of the principle of state sovereignty which is governed by Article 2(1) and 2(4) 0f the United Nations charter[2]. Consequently, the acquisition and protection of land title in Cameroon which is the heart of research cannot be studied    without referring to our colonial periods or masters, the reason being that Cameroon has an inherited legal system which date back from the period of our colonial master.

The territory Cameroon did not exist till the arrival of the Portuguese in the early 19^th Century, who named the country rio dos cameroes (River of Prawns) from which the country had its name. However, the territory only became a colony upon the signatory of the Germano-Douala Treaty in 1884 and since then, the territory has had a triple colonial experience[3] . In this light, the historical evolution of land tenure in Cameroon is not very different from the changes in colonial masters and policies [4]. The historical origin and evolution of land tenure in Cameroon can be sub divided into three parts to wit; land tenure prior to colonialization, during (German, British and French rule) and post-era.

The precolonial period in Cameroon, which refers to the time before European colonization in the late 19th century,[5] was characterized by a variety of diverse and complex land tenure systems, influenced by the many ethnic groups inhabiting the region. These societies had distinct ways of managing land, based on traditional practices, communal ownership, and local customs.

In many precolonial Cameroonian societies, land was primarily seen as a communal resource, belonging to a community, clan, or extended family rather than to individuals. Land was often collectively managed and cultivated by different families within a village, with rights to land being passed down through generations or allocated by local leaders (such as chiefs or elders).[6]

Many ethnic groups, such as the Duala, Bamiléké, and Bamenda, were organized into chiefdoms or kingdoms, where the chief (or king) played an important role in land distribution. The chief might allocate land to individuals or families for farming or settlement, but land remained under the overarching authority of the community or the chiefdom. Chiefs were considered custodians of the land, and their role was to ensure its productive use and to resolve any disputes[7]

Land was primarily used for subsistence farming, which included the cultivation of crops such as yams, plantains, cassava, maize, and beans. Livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, were also important in some regions. The use of the land was largely tied to agricultural and social activities, and traditional systems often ensured sustainable land use, where fallow periods and crop rotation were common practices.

In many societies, access to land was tied to social identity, including ethnicity, lineage, and gender. For example, land ownership and use were often inherited along patriarchal lines, but matrilineal societies (like the Bakweri people of the Southwest) had different inheritance systems. In these communities, land rights could pass through the mother’s line, and women often had significant roles in land management.

Disputes over land ownership and boundaries were not uncommon in the precolonial period. These disputes were usually resolved through traditional mechanisms, such as mediation by elders, or through warfare between neighboring groups. These conflicts could arise from expansionist ambitions, disputes over agricultural resources, or issues of land inheritance.

Land held spiritual and cultural importance for many communities in precolonial Cameroon. Certain areas were considered sacred or imbued with ancestral significance, and religious leaders or traditional priests often played a role in regulating the use of such land. Sacred forests, hills, rivers, and other natural sites were sometimes reserved for rituals or protected from human activity.

Trade was also a significant aspect of the precolonial Cameroonian economy, and land was sometimes exchanged or leased in trade relations, especially in areas near coastal ports, like the Duala kingdom, which had access to European traders. The presence of various indigenous groups with different agricultural practices and trade networks created a diverse landscape of land use and ownership. We can see that the nation of individuals land tenure is a complex and novelty to the traditional African context, because the earliest forms of abstaining lands were by first settlement and through wars.[8] The evolution of Land tenure in Cameron revolved around 3 countries: Germany, Britain and France[9] .

To begin Under the German reign which began with the signing of the German-Douala Treaty on 12 July 1884, an organized system of land administration based on the imperial ordinance of 15 July 1896 which defined German land policy in Cameroon was created. This ordinance classified land into three categories: vacant and ownerless lands allocated to the crown (or German State): occupied or exploited land: inalienable and similar lands in the public domain”.

The laws of the Reich and the Prussian laws in force in Germany were adapted to the colonies and protectorates including Cameroon”[10]. In this context, the decree of November 21, 1902 extended to the German colonies the regime of registration in the land register (Grundbuch) whose aim was to guarantee the right.

Individual land; this was the birth certificate of its registration in Cameroon. The Grundbuch thus came to be coupled with the system of guarantee of real rights which preceded it and was inspired by the Torrens Act on the basis of which a land register had been opened in 1893 at the seat of the imperial court of Douala. However, there is no evidence that after the registration in the Grundbuch, a document serving as a copy of the land title was given to the owner. From the investigations carried out, it appears that this registration in the Grundbuch was the end of the procedure for the recognition of land rights during the German period. The German presence in Cameroon was short-lived because, on June 28, 1919, the date of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, Cameroon was officially divided between France and England, each of which had its own land management system.[11]

In British Cameroon, the land and property regime evolved differently, Germany, instigator of the First World War, was dispossessed of its former colonies including the western part of Cameroon which was entrusted to Great Britain.

 West Cameroon experienced a dualism in land tenure; on the one hand, Great Britain instituted English law (or Common Law) there and on the other hand, this same part of Cameroon was also governed by texts in force in Eastern Nigeria by which the Governor of Nigeria became the master of all lands including those of West Cameroon to the detriment of all the customary chiefs of this locality[12].

In 1927, the British Cameroon Administration Ordinance extended the Land and Native Rights Ordinance to the entire territory of West Cameroon. This text conferred the right to enjoy and occupy common land, under the name of rights of occupancy. These rights of occupancy were materialized by the issuance of a from the land title because it concerned provisional rights of enjoyment, which could be withdrawn at any time by the governor. The certificate of occupancy conferred a simple right of provisional or precarious occupation with two variables: The Statutory right of occupancy » which is a right recognized to allogènes and immigrants, called to become certificate of occupancy; The Customary right of occupancy” which is a right recognized to natives, indigenous peoples and customary communities, without the possibility of transformation into a certificate of occupancy”. [13]This had an unlimited duration, but the established rights remained precarious.

Moreover, these provisional rights conferred by the “Customary right of occupancy” could be withdrawn at any time by the Governor.[14] For this reason, the natives ended up requesting, without success, the issuance of certificates of occupancy which conferred some rights on their holders. The legal insecurity in which the British colonizer kept the natives and local customary communities led them to defy and confront him. To do this, they grouped themselves into committees, organizations and associations whose objective was to access full real estate ownership to defend and recover their lands formerly occupied by the Germans by breaking the authority of the British Governo General[15]. These demands and inclinations into violence highlighted the apparent neutrality of a land system that was truly discriminatory and unjust to the disadvantage of the natives.

 Thanks to the support of political leaders and traditional chiefs, the legislation was revised and evolved, notably in 1956 with the institution of “Free Hold Lands” and “Lease Hold Lands” which reverted to customary communities and no longer to the British crown. It should be noted that this ordinance remained in force in the English-speaking zone of Cameroon until 1974. At the time it gained sovereignty, Cameroon had three different land regimes, two in Eastern Cameroon and one in Western.

Cameroon’s land policy under French Cameroon (1916-1960) The French unlike the British applied a system of direct rule which gave them the leeway to directly export and apply their legislation in Cameroon.[16] They generally differentiated between laws that applied to the indigenes known as ‘droit indigenat and those that applied to the educated and assimilated Cameroonians referred to as ‘droit assimile. However, when it came to matters of land, such distinction did not exist with the French applying a uniform system of land tenure.

The French adopted a system of granting land by concession where upon an application for grant of such land, the government will grant the land to an individual for a particular purpose stated in the ‘cahier de charge’ which literally translates to a record book. The individual was obliged to adhere to the purpose of the land as stated in the ‘cahier de charges’ and once the purpose was fulfilled, the grantee could apply for the conversion of the land to freehold. In 1932, the French enacted two decrees, the first being for the collective recording of land rights by corporate bodies with no document of title and the second pertaining to the registration of individual land rights. These rights were registered in ‘livre foncier issued 3 months after a meeting with the prefer’ (District Officer). Though the ‘livre foncier gave some form of insurance and security of title over land, holders of such land rights could only sell with the consent of the administration[17].

Further, in 1938, the French administration divided all lands into 3 holdings: native lands, lands under German titles and terre vaccante (vacant land). All lands which were not occupied under German title were considered as vacant lands. The French aptly described these lands in the following words; ‘terre vaccante et sans maître appartenent au territoire which translates to, vacant lands without masters/owners belong the territory. The territory referred to in this statement did not refer to the indigenous territory but rather, the greater French territory since the French considered their overseas territories as an integral part of France usually referred to as franced utre mere. The concept of ‘terre vaccante was more or less a reincarnation of the German concept of ‘herrenloss land’. This policy was not greeted with much euphoria by the indigenes who considered it unjust and unacceptable[18], and as independence drew nearer, land became highly political”. In an attempt to swing support in their favor, the French enacted the decree of 1959 to re-establish customary land tenure.” Article 3 of that decree placed all lands except private property under customary land tenure.

 After independence, the two Cameroons inherited two separate legal and admin- istrative cultures from the French and British. As federated states of the unified Cameroon, each territory was allowed some autonomy in land administration. The British system of land tenure[19] was applied in West Cameroon as it then was while the French system continued to apply in East Cameroon. However, with the emergence of a new state[20], there was an urgent need to control land that had been placed under customary care by the colonialist before their departure. In a bid for the government to consolidate all lands, they introduced to the concept la patrimonie collective nationale or better still national law under the 1963 decree,[21]  This was more or less a continuous reflection of the concept of ‘terre vaccante under the French reign and ‘herrenloss land under German rule. The 1963 law identified 4 major types of land to wit; national land, state land, land under customary tenancy and land covered by land certificate. In addition, another decree was passed in 1966 in East Cameroon stressing the need for la mise en valeur des terres (evaluation of land) before anyone could obtain a land certificate. Notwithstanding, land tenure in both parts of the territory were eventually harmonized in 1974 with the enactment of 1974 Land Ordinance. land law maintaining by adapting them the achievement of colonization and removing the elements of the colonial land law being able to oppose them.

To go further in our reflection, it is important we define the key concept of our topic which can be sorted out to be protection and land title. “Title” comes from the Latin “titulus”, it is a polysemic and transdisciplinary notion that covers a multiplicity of realities and because it is torn between social, legal and financial aspects, it would be more appropriate to speak of a rich content and semantics about it. As the Robert dictionary indicates, it refers first of all to an administrative or social function[22]. In financial language, the title is assimilated to a payment voucher issued by the State, by an organization, or by a company. It is used to confirm a debt. The lexicon of legal terms confirms this polysemic nature of the term title. There are 6 types or varieties of titles (enforceable title, just title, noble title, participatory title, bearer title, putative title). But consistently, it considers the title as a written document which establishes and proves a right, it is a legal act or instrumentum establishing a right[23].

 This is what we adopt in this study, the word land has two main meanings: it literally designates the part of an object furthest from the opening or the surface and figuratively, it designates what is essential in a thing (as opposed to the form)[24]; whether considered as a noun or an adjective, it refers to land, land holdings, real estate, and everything related to it. It is this latter meaning that is recognized in the legal field. The association of these first two terms << title >> and << land >> allows us to constitute the “land title”, a key element of the research. Assimilated to the act of birth of a building[25], it is considered as the authentic copy of the page of the land register relating to the registered building and attesting to the ownership[26].The Cameroonian legislator defines the land title as the “official certification of real estate ownership[27]. In land conservation, the land title designates an open page of the land register kept by the land registrar responsible for ensuring the guarantee of the real rights that one has over a building. [28]. Some legal schoolers as Professor Tjouen, has “land title” as a method of proving ownership and a means of giving rise to the right of ownership. In summary, the land title could be defined as an act or legal title which establishes and proves land or real estate ownership.

Protection can be defined as “the act of shielding from harm or guarding against danger, injury or loss[29]”.  “Harold Lasswell[30]” a legal scholar define Protection as safeguarding of the integrity, rights, and interests of individuals or groups against internal or external threats, and the provision of security and safety from harm, injury.

Due to the increase in population and development level of the country Cameroon, land has become very scared since it is a basic commodity which everyone need in other to sustain a living (that is its use for many aspect like agriculture, and housing) this is why the government has put in place lawful mode of acquisitions of land by providing decree N°76- 165 of April 1976 fixing the conditions of obtaining  land  title which was modified and supplemented by decree N°2005/481 of December 2005. Despite the existence of a legal framework for land ownership and title registration in Cameroon, challenges such as land disputes, fraudulent land transactions, lack of access to formal registration, and the complexity of the dual land tenure system undermine the security and protection of land titles, particularly for rural and marginalized populations. These issues create legal uncertainty, hinder economic development, and exacerbate land-related conflicts, posing significant barriers to the effective and equitable use of land in Cameroon. Consequently, the acquisition and protection of land title which is the heart of this research is trickly organized by the lawmaker. Therefore, there is need for research to highlight the legal regime on which a land title can be acquired and protected. The legal issue of this research is to know how effective is the protection of land title in Cameroon?

The interest of the study on the acquisition and protection of land title in Cameroon holds economic, social, and political significance. From an economic perspective, it promotes investment, security, and sustainable development. Socially, it has the potential to improve land tenure security, reduce inequality, and promote social justice, particularly for vulnerable groups. Politically, the research can support good governance by advocating for stronger legal frameworks and land management systems that enhance state legitimacy and political stability.

For a better understanding of this research, we need to look at the different perspective of some schools of thought regarding the acquisition and protection of land title which are; Natural law school of thought, the legal positivism school of thought, the historical school of thought and the Legal realism school of thought.

 the Natural law school of thought Perception of Land Title, according to the Natural Law tradition, land ownership and title are grounded in inherent moral principles. Natural law theorists like John Locke argued that property rights, including land, originate from one’s labor. If a person mixes their labor with land, they acquire a title to it, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. This is because the Natural Law perspective maintains that land titles are not just legal instruments but have moral and ethical underpinnings that reflect natural rights. A title to land is seen as just and legitimate only if it is in accordance with natural justice[31].

 The legal Positivism school of thought, their Perception of Land Title, championed by theorists such as John Austin and H.L.A. Hart, posits that land titles are valid solely because they are recognized and enforced by the state.  According to legal positivists, the law is a system of rules created by social institutions (like the legislature or the courts), and land titles are valid only insofar as they are created and sanctioned by the legal system. For legal positivists, the legitimacy of a land title is determined by its compliance with the enacted law, not by any moral considerations[32]. The state’s authority to create and enforce property rights is the central concern.

 Historical School, associated with figures like Friedrich Carl von Savigny, emphasizes the importance of traditions, customs, and historical practices in shaping the law. Land titles, from this perspective, are seen as evolving over time in accordance with the customs and practices of a particular society. The validity of a land title is rooted in the historical development of property law and the customs surrounding land ownership within a given community[33]. For historical jurists, land titles are shaped by the collective history and customs of a people. They see law as a reflection of society’s values and historical development. Thus, land title practices should be understood in their historical context, which gives them their legitimacy.

  Legal Realism Perspective on Land Title which is represented by scholars like Jerome Frank and Karl Llewellyn, takes a more pragmatic and empirical approach. Legal realists argue that land titles are not purely abstract legal concepts but are shaped by the practical realities of how judges, lawmakers, and other legal actors actually operate in society[34]. They assert that decisions regarding land titles are influenced by political, economic, and social factors, and judges often make decisions based on personal biases, institutional pressures, or societal trends rather than on strictly legal reasoning. For legal realists, land title is not just a matter of formal law; it is shaped by the practicalities of real-world legal processes and the behavior of those who enforce the law. The real-world impact of legal decisions is the focus.

Despite their differing approaches, all schools agree that land is a vital asset and that secure access to land is essential for individual and community stability. They recognize the importance of institutional frameworks whether formal or customary for regulating land rights. Furthermore, they acknowledge that insecure tenure can lead to conflict and underdevelopment, and that any land system. We see that the acquisition and protection of land title in Cameroon really need a serious attention if we want to maintain social cohesion and reduce disputes.

[1] Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The Collected Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. DigiCat, 2022.

[2] United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. 1945. Articles 2(1) and 2(4).

[3] Loh, Nassi-Sandra Akum. “Land Ownership in Cameroon: An Overview.” International Journal of Law and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, 2023, pp. 50–73.

[4] Ibid

[5] Sama-Lang, Irene. Lecture Notes on Land Law. Faculty of Laws and Political Science, University of Buea, 2019. Unpublished handout.

[6] Ibid

[7] Loh, Nassi-Sandra Akum. “Land Ownership in Cameroon: An Overview.” International Journal of Law and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, 2023, pp. 50–73.

[8] ibid.

[9]Noël Urbain Ebang Mvé. Le titre foncier au Cameroun. L’Harmattan, 2011, p. 27.

[10] Article 1^er du décret du 21 Novembre 1902

[11] Noël Urbain Ebang Mvé. Le titre foncier au Cameroun. L’Harmattan, 2011, p. 27.

[12] Loh, Nassi-Sandra Akum. “Land Ownership in Cameroon: An Overview.” International Journal of Law and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, 2023, pp. 50–73.

[13] Noël, Urbain Ebang Mvé. Le titre foncier au Cameroun. L’Harmattan, 2011, pp. 30.

[14] ibid.

[15] Fogui, Jean-Pierre. L’intégration politique au Cameroun : Une analyse centre-périphérie. LGDJ, 1990, pp. 61–62.

[16]Loh, Nassi-Sandra Akum. “Land Ownership in Cameroon: An Overview.” International Journal of Law and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, 2023, pp. 53–73.

[17] Ibid

[18] Tijouen, André Dassi. Droits domaniaux et techniques foncières en droit camerounais. Éditions Economica, 1981, p. 93.

[19] Law No. 59-47 of 17 June 1959.

[20]The Federal Republic of Cameroon upon reunification in 1961 and later the United Republic of Cameroon and The Republic of Cameroon after referendum in 1972 and the amended of the 1996 constitution respectively.

[21] Law No. 63-2 of 9th January 1963.

[22] Dictionnaire Robert, édition 2005, p. 427.

[23] Guillen, Raymond, and Jean Vincent. Lexique des termes juridiques. 13th ed., Dalloz, 2001, pp. 445, 567.

[24] “Fonds.” Association de la Presse Francophone, www.pressefrancophone.org/apfa/etymology/fonds.htm. Accessed 29 June 2025

[25] Nyama,Jean Marie. Régime foncier et domanialité publique au Cameroun, Presses de l’UCAC, 2001.p47

[26] Loi n°2005-19 du 17 octobre 2005 fixant les principes régissant les statuts des terres à Madagascar.

[27]Article 1º of  Decree  n°76/165, op.cit

[28] Loi n°2005-19 du 17 octobre 2005 fixant les principes régissant les statuts des terres à Madagascar.

[29] Black’s law dictionary. Edited by Bryan A. Garner, 11^th ed., Thomson Reuter, 2024

[30] Harold Lasswell, “Politics: Who Gets What, When, how” (1936)

[31]  Bruce Andrew Lustig. “Natural Law, Property, and Justice: The General Justification of Property in John Locke.” Thomas Aquinas, edited by Brian Davies, Routledge, 2017, pp. 289–319.

[32]  Thomas Campbell. Prescriptive Legal Positivism: Law, Rights and Democracy. Psychology Press, 2004.

[33] Carol M. Rose. “Possession as the Origin of Property.” The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 52, no. 1, 1985, pp. 73–88.

[34] Joseph William Singer. “Legal Realism Now.” California Law Review, vol. 76, no. 3, 1988, pp. 465–544.