Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
A substantial part of the rules governing land tenure and its conveyance has had the prevention of fraud and double-dealing as its object. Rapacious vendors have perfected the skill of selling the same piece of land successively to more than one purchaser. Trespassers have brazenly taken possession of land in which they have no vestige of interest, challenging the owner and asserting limited or absolute rights to it. Some of these frauds are perpetrated because land transactions are not publicised. It is no surprise therefore that the elimination of secrecy in such dealings was appreciated early in man's history.
The oldest recorded land transaction, which took place almost 4,000 years ago in 1881 BCE in the Middle East, was concluded in the presence of witnesses, “before the eyes of the sons of Heth among all those entering the gate of his city”. Witnesses give the transaction publicity and they are also people who could testify to it. But the testimony, useful as it is, has its shortcomings and cannot always be relied on to determine either whether the transaction took place or the nature of the rights and obligations it conferred on the parties. With the passing of time the frail memory of the witnesses fails; on their death any evidence given becomes hearsay with the attendant possibility that subsequent persons may alter what they were told.
1 The Holy Bible: Genesis 23: 7–8Google Scholar; the date is obtained from Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. II, 31, published by the Watchtower Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar.
2 Cap. 99 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1958. All the States in the Federation have similar statutes all of which are verbatim reproductions of the Federal Act.
3 Cap. 181, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1958.
4 Ossai v. Nwajide, (1975) 4 S.C. 207Google Scholar; Ojugbele v. Olasoji, (1982) 4 S.C. 31Google Scholar; Akintola v. Solano, (1986) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) 331Google Scholar.
5 (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 74Google Scholar.
6 (1979) 3 L.R.N. 356Google Scholar.
7 Above, at 76.
8 Khoury v. Azar, (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 261, at 262 per Verity, C. J.Google Scholar.
9 Maddison v. Alderson, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 467Google Scholar; Udolisa v. Nwanosike, (1973) 3 E.C.S.L.R. 653Google Scholar.
10 Re Boyes (1884) 26 Ch.D. 531Google Scholar; Re Keen (1937) Ch. 236Google Scholar.
11 Crayem v. Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd., (1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 433Google Scholar; Obijuru v. Ozims, (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 6) 167Google Scholar. Cf ss. 193 and 194 Property and Conveyancing Law, Cap. 100, Laws of Western Nigeria, 1959 which provides that registration under the Land Instrument Registration Law, Cap. 56, constitutes actual notice.
12 (1959) 1 F.S.C. 94, 98Google Scholar.
13 (1961) All N.L.R. 87Google Scholar.
14 (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 304Google Scholar.
15 Ibid, at 309.
16 (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 154Google Scholar.
17 Registered Trustees of Apostolic Faith Mission v. James, (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 61) 556Google Scholar. See also Okeke v. Tofi (No. 2), (1979) 3 L.R.N. 337Google Scholar, at 350 where Idoko, J., held that registration constitutes actual notice to all persons for all purposes connected with the land.
18 May v. Chapman, (1847) 16 M. & W. 355Google Scholar, at 361 per Lord Wensleydale.
19 (1911) 2 Ren. 592Google Scholar; see also Arkaah v. Tarqua Mining Exploration Co., (1911) 2 Ren. 604Google Scholar and Hochman v. Arkhurst (1920) 1 F.C. 102Google Scholar. Section 20 of the Gold Coast Land Registry Ordinance is similar to the Nigerian s. 16.
20 (1933) 11 N.L.R. 86Google Scholar.
21 Above, n. 12.
22 Above, n. 13.
23 Above, n. 14.
24 Above, n. 16.
25 Le Neve v. Le Neve (1747) Amb. 436Google Scholar.
26 (1915) 1 Ch. 643, at 669Google Scholar.
27 The Act under consideration was the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 93Google Scholar; but the principle applies to all registration statutes which have publicity as their object.
28 Akingbade v. Elemosho, above, n. 16; Crayem, above, n. 11; Obijuru Ozims, n. 11; Okoye v. Dumez (Nig) Ltd., (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. 783, at 790Google Scholar.
29 Crayem, above, n. 11; Akingbade, above, n. 16.
30 Above n. 17.
31 Crayem, above n. 11.
32 Registration of Titles Acts, s. 54; see however Johnson v. Onisiwo, (1943) 9 W.A.C.A. 189, at 192Google Scholar.
33 No. 6 of 1978.
34 (1905) 1 Ren. 318Google Scholar.
35 Above, n. 11.
36 See also Amankra v. Zankley, above, n. 13 and Containers (Nig) Ltd. v. Niglas Co. Ltd., (1979) 4–6 C.C.H.C.J. 290Google Scholar where it was held that until registration, an instrument is ineffectual.
37 Above, nn. 3 and 4 and text.
38 Okoyev. Dumez (Nig) Ltd., above, n. 28.
39 Abigail v. Lapin, (1934) A.C. 491, 504Google Scholar per Lord Wright.
40 Le Neve v. Le Neve, above, n. 25, per Lord Hardwicke.
41 Re Monolithic Building Co., above, n. 26 at 650Google Scholar.
42 (1823) 3 Russ 1; 38 E.R. 479Google Scholar.
43 23rd ed. 29.
44 I.A.C. (Finance) Pty. Ltd. v. Courtenay, (1963–1964) 37 A.L.J.R. 350, at 359Google Scholar; see also Stirling, L. J. in Taylor v. London & County Banking Co., (1901) 2 Ch. 231Google Scholar.
45 (1885) 29 Ch. 786Google Scholar.
46 Assaf v. Fuwa (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 232Google Scholar.
47 Above, n. 14. See also Folashade v. Durodola, above, n. 13.
48 Above, n. 14 at 307.
49 The facts in Registered Trustees etc. v. James, above, n. 17 support this. The respondent's predecessor-in-title did not register his instrument but the respondent registered his before the appellant did. The respondent's interest was upheld.
50 Principles of Property Law, Law Book Co., Melbourne, 291Google Scholar.
51 Okunubi v. Assaf, (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 226, 231Google Scholar.
52 Crayon, above, n. 10 at 446Google Scholar; Moubarak v. Japour, (1944) 10 W.A.C.A. 102, at 106Google Scholar: “Land Registry Ordinance … does not give to a registered deed any priority over an earlier grant by native law and custom”.
53 Cote v. Folami, (1956) 1 F.S.C. 66Google Scholar; Onyekonwu v. Okeke, (1961) 5 E.N.L.R. 48Google Scholar. This practice is however not uniform all over the country; in Adegboyega v. Igbinosun, (1969) 1 All N.L.R. 1Google Scholar, the Supreme Court refused to apply it to Bini Law in the absence of proof.
54 (1986) 2 N.W.L.R. 387Google Scholar.
55 Rotibi v. Savage, (1944) 17 N.L.R. 77Google Scholar.
56 (1967) N.M.L.R. 287Google Scholar.
57 Subramonian v. Lutchman, (1922) 50 Ind. App. 77, at 83Google Scholar; Coker v. Ogunye, (1939) 15 N.L.R. 57, at 59Google Scholar; Elegbede v. Savage, (1951) 20 N.L.R. 9, at 10Google Scholar; Ezejiofor, , “Registrable Instruments”, (1978–1988) 3 Nig. J.R. 139Google Scholar.
58 Ogunbambi v. Abowab, (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222, at 224Google Scholar; Kabiawu v. Lawal, (1965) 1 All N.L.R. 329Google Scholar; Adegboyega v. Igbinosun, above, n. 53.
59 Above, n. 57; see also Akingbade v. Elemosho, above, n. 16.
60 The classic definition of estoppel by negligence is that formulated by Blackburn, J., in Swan v. North British Australasian Co., 2 H. & C. 175, at 182Google Scholar: “The neglect of some duty that is owing to the person led into that belief [i.e. in a certain state of facts], or, what amounts to the same thing, to the general public of whom the person is one, and not merely neglect of what would be prudent in respect to the party himself, or even of some duty owing to third persons with whom those seeking to set up the estoppel are not privy”.
61 Essays on the Land Use Act, 44Google Scholar.
62 Op cit., above, n. 57.
63 See Omotola, (ed.), The Land Use Act: Report of a National Workshop, 145–146Google Scholar.
64 (1979) 3 L.R.N. 337, 350Google Scholar; (1980) 1 P.L.R. 605Google Scholar. Section 10 of the Land Tenure Law, Cap. 59, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963, under which the case was decided is in pari material with s. 9 of the Land Use Act.
65 See Elkali v. Fawaz, (1940) 6 W.A.C.A. 212, at 214Google Scholar.
66 Orjiako v. Orjiako (unreported) cited in Bisichi Tin Co. Ltd. v. Okonkwo, (1961) N.R.N.L.R. 60Google Scholar.
67 The view expressed by the Privy Council in Denning v. Edwardes, [1961] A.C. 245Google Scholar that the agreement is inchoate is unacceptable. The fact that the courts are willing to order specific performance of the agreement bears this out, Matniso v. Pate, (1971) N.N.L.R. 58Google Scholar.
