(3) Lands of which the occupiers, though nkali (tributary), claim to be the proprietors, acknowledging only the overlordship of the chief at Mbau, to whom on that account they are subject to lala.
An instance of this tenure is to be found in Mokani. The people account for the difference in their status from that of the other nkali tribes by saying that they were given their lands by the Ndravo people, to whom they are related. In this case the land was registered in the name of the people, endorsing the register with a statement of the usual tribute due to the overlord.
It should here be noted that it is only in these cases that the turanga-i-taukei, provided for in the Regulation of 1883 as the recipient of forty per cent. of the rents for lease moneys, can be said to exist, and as a measure of justice to the people, the Regulation should be so amended as to allow ninety per cent. to be divided among the people in all cases in which the Native Lands Commissioners certify that there is no turanga-i-taukei (overlord).
(4) Lands which are owned by the tribes independently of Mbau, and are subject only to the overlordship of their own local chief.
Namata may be cited as an instance of this kind of tenure. The clan was mbati to Mbau, and therefore subject only to military service. As a consequence the Mbau chiefs have no power to levy food or personal service from Namata.
(5) Land of which the local chief claims to be the absolute owner.
The only instance we have found of this tenure is in Nakelo, which was a very powerful tribe until the introduction of firearms by Charles Savage about 1802-7 enabled Mbau to reduce it.
In spite, however, of the assertion of Tui Nakelo it is doubtful whether the chief's rights could ever have been exercised without the assent of his own tribe. In these days
at any rate, they could not be so exercised without shocking native opinion.
(6) Lands owned by the commune without the overlordship of any chief either local or central.