STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

THE ADVANTAGES OF THE REGISTRATION OF TITLE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The advantage of registered title is that the purchaser can discover from the mere inspection of the register whether the vendor has power to sell the land and what the more important incumbrances are except in the case of what may be classified as overriding interest, as contained in s.52 of the Registration of Titles Law, which bind the proprietor of registered land even though he has no knowledge of them and no reference is made to them in the register. Otherwise, a registered owner of land is not affected by notice of any unregistered estate, interest or claim affecting the estate of any previous registered owner, nor is he concerned to inquire whether the terms of any caution or restriction existing before he was registered as owner of such land have been complied with see s.54. Short of rectification of the register carried out in pursuance of s.61, a registered owner’s title is indefeasible. It has been said that a register of title is an authoritative record, kept in a public office, of the rights to clearly defined units of land as vested for the time being in some particular person or body, and of the limitations, if any, to which these rights are subject. With certain exceptions known as ‘overriding interests’, all the material particulars affecting the title to the land are fully revealed merely by a perusal of the register which is maintained and warranted by the State. The register is at all times the final authority and the State accepts responsibility for the validity of transactions, which are effected by making an entry in the register.

— Uwais, JSC. Onagoruwa & Ors. v. Akinremi (2001) – SC.191/1997

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

title to land

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE DOCUMENT OF TITLE IS ADMITTED AS SUFFICIENT PROOF

Mere production of a deed of conveyance or document of title does not automatically entitle a party to a claim in declaration, before the production of document of title is admitted as sufficient proof of ownership, the court must satisfy itself that:- (a) The document is genuine or valid (b) It has been duly executed, stamped and registered. (c) The grantor has the authority and capacity to make the grant. (d) That the grantor has in fact what he proposes to grant. (e) That the grant has the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument. Ayorinde v. Kuforiji (2007) 4 NWLR, Pt.1024, Pg. 341, Dosunmu v. Dada (2002) 13 NWLR Pt. 783, Pg. 1 Romaine v. Romaine (1992), 4 NWLR Pt. 238 Pg. 650, Kyri v Alkali (2001) FWLR, Pt 60, Pg. 1481 Dabor v. Abdullahi (2005) 29 WRM 11 SC 7 NWLR Pt. 923, Pg. 181.

— O.O. Adekeye, JSC. Agboola v UBA (2011) – SC.86/2003

Was this dictum helpful?

CANNOT SET UP A ROOT OF TITLE DIFFERENT FROM VENDOR

The court below was therefore right, in my view, in holding that this could not be so in that 2nd Respondent who derived his title from the Respondent cannot set up a root of title different from that of his Vendor. He must either sink or swim with him, it being that a Vendor can only pass to the purchasers whatever title he has. See Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 76) 263.

— Dike & Ors. V. Francis Okoloedo & Ors. (SC.116/1993, 15 Jul 1999)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE COMPETING TITLE, THE ONE WHO SHOWS A BETTER TITLE WINS

Where there are competing titles, which trace their root to the same source, the one who can show a better title prevails. See:Omiyale Vs Macaulay (2009) FWLR (Pt. 479) 399: Otukpo vs John (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt: 661) 1509; (2012) LPELR–25053 (SC).

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Reg. Trustees Apostolic Church v. Reg. Trustees of Grace Church (2021) – SC.270/2011

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN ROOT OF TITLE NEEDS TO BE PROVED

Uche v. Eke (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 564) 24 at 35, this court, per Iguh, JSC observed: “In the first place, it has been stressed times without number that it would be wrong to assume that all a person who resorts to a grant as a method of proving his title to land needs do is simply to produce his deed of title and rest his case thereon. Without doubt, the mere tendering of such document of title may be sufficient to prove such grant where the title of the grantor to such land is either admitted or not in dispute. Where, however, as in the present case, an issue has been seriously raised as to the title of such a grantor to the land in dispute, the origin or root of title of such a grantor must not only be clearly averred in the pleadings, it must also be proved by evidence.”

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE IDENTITY OF LAND NOT IN DISPUTE, DECLARATION OF TITLE MAY BE MADE WITHOUT SURVEY PLAN

The first point that must be made is the basic principle of law that in a counter-claim, just like in any other claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the claimant to prove with precision and certainty and without inconsistency the identity of the land to which his claim or counter-claim relates. See Onwuka v.Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 182; Ezeokeke v. Umunocha Uga (1962) 1 All NLR 477. (1962) 2 SCNLR 199; Olusanmi v. Oshasona (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 22 at 36, Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 141 etc. There can be no doubt that the most common and, perhaps, the easiest way of establishing the precise area of land in dispute is by the production of a survey plan of such land. It is, however, equally clear that it is not in all cases for declaration of title to land that it is necessary to survey and/or tender the survey plan of the land in dispute. There are many cases in which no survey plans are essential for a proper determination of the issue. What the court must consider is whether, in a particular case, it is necessary for the proper trial of the action for a survey plan to be produced. Where there is no difficulty in identifying the land in dispute, a declaration of title may be made without the necessity of tying it to a survey plan.

— Iguh, JSC. Kyari v Alkali (2001) – SC.224/1993

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE TRADITIONAL HISTORIES ARE PLAUSIBLE, COURT WILL RELY ADDITIONALLY ON ACTS OF OWNERSHIP & LONG POSSESSION

A party seeking a declaration of title to land is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title to succeed but he is entitled to rely on more than one root of title. However, where as in this case, he relies on traditional history, and in addition acts of ownership and long possession predicated on the traditional history as pleaded, he is not entitled to a declaration of title based on the evidence of acts of ownership and long possession where the evidence of traditional history is unavailing: See Balogun v. Akanji (1988 ) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 70) 301 at 232; Eronini v. Iheuko (1989) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 101) 46 at 61. However, such evidence of acts of ownership and long possession becomes relevant where the traditional histories given by both sides though plausible are in conflict. In such a situation, it will not be open to the court simply to prefer one side to the other. To determine which of the histories is more probable, the courts have called in aid the principle enunciated in the celebrated case of Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223 which is to the effect that the preference of one history to the other as being more probable would depend on recent acts of ownership and possession shown by the parties that the court would need to consider to make up its mind. See Ohiaeri v. Akabeze (1992) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 221) 1 at 19, Ekpo v. Ita (1932- 34) 11 N.L.R. 68, Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd. (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 7) 393.

— Edozie JSC. Cosm As Ezukwu v. Peter Ukachukwu Jude Ukachukwu (SC. 160/2000, 2 July 2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.