The current law in England and Wales adopts a no-property approach to cadavers and separated bodily parts; paradoxically, it affords proprietary protection to tissue users at the expense of tissue sources. Non-proprietary frameworks hardly offer effective legal redress to tissue sources. Potentially, the law could offer tissue sources a mix of proprietary and non-proprietary remedies. Drawing from the work of the famous anthropologist, Marilyn Strathern, I argue that such a flexible and eclectic approach might be facilitated by the concept of duplex, an analytical tool that promotes divergent thinking and paradoxical conceptions of a given issue. I argue that while the no-property rule reflects a duplex on bodily parts, the duplex is narrow and ought to be conceptualised more broadly to cover the claims of tissue sources.

A host of activities jeopardise the safety of an excised organ: an organ transported across local, regional, state or national boundaries could be damaged or lost in transit. A thief might snatch the organ from the possession of the transplant team; a transplant surgeon could use the organ for the treatment of their relative or patient, a celebrity or an influential political figure, instead of transplanting the organ into the properly selected and designated recipient. Also, the organ could be damaged maliciously by a third party. Furthermore, a live donor might change their mind after the organ had been retrieved, or the intended recipient might die before a scheduled transplant, after the organ had been retrieved from a live donor. In the above cases, the organ is in a state of limbo, prompting an enquiry into the appropriate remedial responses of the law for a claimant. Non-proprietary remedies might be helpful in the above scenarios, but fail to provide the necessary continuing control. Accordingly, the first section of this paper considers whether positive law recognises the existence of proprietary interests in excised organs; absent such protection, this paper suggests that the law should recognise proprietary interests in excised organs.

Do the terms of the Nigerian Land Use Act permit the application of equitable principles to transactions under it? More particularly, could equity be used to enforce null and void transactions under the Act? Although the Supreme Court answered these questions in the negative in Ajilo, other decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as some sections of the Act itself, suggest that the Act is not incompatible with equitable principles. Nor is it contrary to public policy to enforce null and void transactions under the Act through the intervention of equity. Two relevant equitable concepts are resulting and constructive trusts. While constructive trusts have found some fertile soil in Nigerian equity jurisprudence (despite the discordant tune in Ajilo), Nigerian courts seem to struggle with the principles of resulting trust. This article suggests that resulting and constructive trusts are proper instruments for the interpretation and application of the Act and that Ajilo should be overruled.

Nigerian conveyancers routinely resort to powers of attorney and agreements to sell (estate contracts) as tools to avoid the prohibitory clauses of the Land Use Act. Judges have shown their sympathy through a strict (but beneficial) construction. Nevertheless, the current system exacerbates the risk of acquiring precarious titles in land transactions. Accordingly, this article suggests that the avoidance objective will be best achieved through the application of the principles of trust and the use of trust instruments such as express written declarations of trust.

Recent events and a few judicial decisions in Nigeria show the need for a serious analytical engagement with the law relating to dead bodies. Topical issues from these cases focus on jurisdiction, the right to control the disposition of remains, and remedies available for the infringement of a burial right. While the meaning and content of sepulchral rights remain the same in Nigeria as in many industrialized nations, its prioritization is markedly different. In contrast to the highly individualized nature of burial rights in many Western legal systems, the control of sepulchral right in Nigeria is familial in character. In some circumstances, however, recourse may be had to statutory provisions that import English priority rules. While a range of remedies is available for an interference with a burial right, injunctions and declarations are the most sought after by Nigerian litigants. An expedited hearing is preferable to an interlocutory order of injunction.