A constructive or implied trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstance that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee. See Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. 122 N.E 378, Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition, Page 1513.
— P.A. Galumje, JSC. Huebner v Aeronautical Ind. Eng. (2017) – SC.198/2006
SHARE ON
For the definition of what constitutes resulting trust see the case of Shephard vs. Cartwright (1995) AC 431 at 445. See also Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition at page 1315. As clearly illustrated in the leading judgment of my learned brother, Tobi, JSC, there are no hard and fast rules about what amounts to resulting trust especially as it relates to land. Where it arises, the claimant of the piece of land must prove by hard and concrete evidence that he actually owned and/or was entitled to the land but voluntarily or involuntarily opted that the Title Deed or Deed of Assignment be made in favour of another in anticipation of a marriage of whatever the case may be. Where a party as in the instant case, fails to properly plead the issue of resulting trust (or any other trust) he cannot raise the issue at the address stage or on appeal as the evidence or arguments or submissions on facts not hitherto pleaded, go to no issue.
— Onu, JSC. Ezennah v Atta (2004) – SC.226/2000
If a stranger to a trust (a) receives and becomes chargeable with some part of the trust fund or (b) assists the trustees of a trust with knowledge of the facts in a dishonest design on the part of the trustees to misapply some part of a trust fund, he is liable as a constructive trustee (Barnes v Addy ((1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 at 251–252) per Lord Selborne LC).
— Buckley LJ. Belmont v Williams [1980] 1 ALL ER 393
RE: KAYFOLD LTD (In liquidation) 1975 1 All E.R. In that case the Managing Director of the company concerned about protecting customers who had send in money was advised to open a special account called a “customers Trust Deposit Account” into which such customers money will be deposed. The manager rather than open the account, the “Managing director agreed with his Banker to use an existing formal deposit account. After the customers funds had been deposited in the said account for the agreed purpose only, the Bank sought to apply those funds to other purposes. The court held that a trust had been created in favour of the customers of the company as the three certainties were present to create a trust.
In considering the scope of the rights of an equitable mortgagee (not by way of charge) it should be borne in mind that the general rule is that foreclosure (and not sale) is the proper remedy of an equitable mortgagee (See James vs James (1873) L.R. 16 E. 153 citing with approval Pryce vs Bury at 154); and when an equitable mortgagee by deposit of title deeds and agreement to give a legal mortgage if called upon to do so takes foreclosure proceedings to enforce his security, the court usually decrees that the deposit operates as a mortgage and that in default of payments due under the mortgage the mortgagor is trustee of the legal estate for the mortgagee and that he must convey that estate to him.
– Idigbe JSC. Ogundiani v. Araba (1978)
In its legal sense, “a trust” is the relationship, which arises wherever a person called the trustee is compelled in equity to hold property, whether real or personal, and whether by legal or equitable title, for the benefit of some persons (of whom he may be one and who are termed cestuis que trust) or for some object permitted by law, in such a way that the real benefit of the property accrues, not to the trustee but, to the beneficiaries or other object of the trust – Professor Keeton in Law of Trust, 9th Ed.
— A.A. Augie, JSC. Huebner v Aeronautical Ind. Eng. (2017) – SC.198/2006
Now, what is resulting trust? An implied trust or resulting trust is a trust founded upon the unexpressed intention of the settlor. One example of such a situation is where a purchased property is conveyed into the name of someone other than the purchaser or where, as in this case, a person applies for leasehold of a right of occupancy in the name of another person. The clear result of such cases is that the benefit accrues to the person who advances the money. Further, the same situation would arise even if the advancement of money is indirect, as where one party pays expenses which the other would otherwise have had to pay.
– Musdapher, JSC. Atta v. Ezeanah (2000)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry