Introduction The common law canon of land law known as the principle of Aboriginal title is what is referred to as the doctrine of native title in Australia. 1 Under this doctrine, the land law of Australia appreciates the fact that there does exist indigenous people in the country who have rights, as well as interests to the country’s land that emanates from history, traditions, and customs. The concept provides that the indigenous Australians are the original owners of the land because they are the natives of Australia. Consequently, they should benefit from the land and any interest accruing from the land. In addition, the titles issued by the Crown when Australia was granted independence did not take away the Aboriginals rights to the land. 2 There has been a protracted struggle for the recognition of these rights and the respect for these interests on land in the legal front since the inception of independence in 1788. The struggle has subsisted up to this day, in spite of the fact that there has been a lasting period exceeding two hundred years of deprivation and displacement. This shows how the issue of land rights in Australia is of importance, more so to the Aborigines. Over the years, the indigenous citizens of Australia have been at the forefront calling upon successful governments, as well as the wider Australian community to come to terms with their unique status as the native, bonafide, historical, and rightful owners of land in Australia. 3 However, this issue has taken different angels over the years, cutting across political divide and the justice system. This essay focuses on the land rights of this indigenous group of people, as well as its effect on the non-indigenous peoples’ land rights. The Mabo case This is a case that acted as the basis for acknowledging the natives of Australia as the rightful land owners. The case was termed as the Mabo v Queensland case. 4 This case saw the plaintiff, Eddie Mabo gain an unexpected level of popularity, especially from persons who believed that they enjoyed native rights over land, when he decided to take initiative to claim the ownership of the native title of Meriam, amongst a couple of other individuals. The case was essentially seeking for recognition of the scattered homelands in the Torres Strait region of the country as native land that enabled the locals enjoy unlimited rights over the land as the bonafide landowners. The main reason for this was that the residents of Torres Strait had been annexed from Queensland in 1879. Consequently, they sued the governing authority of Queensland as the defendant to the suit. The annexation had created a state of uncertainty in terms of the required proper system of land ownership by the plaintiffs and necessitated the suit. The suit against the state of Queensland was to last a total of ten years in the courts before the determining factors were settled. In delivery of the ruling to support the native land rights, Chief Justice Brennan said: “The fiction by which the rights and interests of indigenous inhabitants of land were treated as non-existent was justified by a policy which has no place in the contemporary law of this country” Mabo v Queensland . 5 This effectively settled the matter