In the case of Animashaun v Olojo (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 154) 111, 122-123, Obaseki, JSC expounded the law as follows: “What is the meaning of ‘bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without notice? Bona fide is defined as ‘in good faith, honesty, without fraud, collusion or participation in wrong doing’. Purchasing for value – ‘Purchaser’ in its technical sense does not necessarily imply purchaser for value. ‘For value’ are included to show that value must be given to earn the immunity. ‘Value’ means any consideration in money, money’s worth (e.g. other lands, stocks and shares or services or marriage…). ‘Of a legal estate’ – As Courts of equity break in upon the Common Law, when necessity and conscience require it, still they allow superior force and strength to a legal title to estate…
‘Without notice’ He must have neither actual notice nor constructive notice nor imputed notice. A person has Actual Notice of all facts of which he had actual knowledge however that knowledge was acquired…
Constructive Notice – The Court of Chancery insisted that the purchaser should inquire about equitable interest with no less diligence about legal which they could ignore only at their own peril. The motto of English Conveyance is caveat emptor; the risk of encumbrances is on the purchaser who must satisfy himself by a full investigation of title before completing his purchase.A purchaser would be able to plead absence of notice only if he had made all usual and proper inquiries and had still failed to detect the equitable interest.
Imputed Notice –There is a third category of notice known as imputed notice. If a purchaser employs an agent, such as a solicitor, any actual or constructive notice… which the agent receives is imputed to the purchaser…” [This case was relied on in Umar Ibrahim v Nasiru Danladi Mu’azu & 2 Ors. (2022) – CA/G/317/2019]
LIS PENDENS – ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IS IRRELEVANT
Simply put the doctrine of lis pendens operates to prevent the effective transfer of any property in dispute during the pendency of that dispute. It is quite irrelevant whether the purchaser has notice – actual or constructive. The doctrine is really designed to prevent the vendor from transferring any effective title to the purchaser by depriving him (the Vendor) of any rights over the property during the currency of the litigation or the pendency of the suit. That being so the principle of nemo dat quod non habet will apply to defeat any sale or transfer of such property made during the currency of litigation or the pendency of the action.
— Oputa, JSC. Osagie v. Oyeyinka & Anor. (1987) – SC.194/1985