G. F. Oyedele Vs P.b. Ogun & Anor (1975)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. A. COKER, J.S.C. 

The proceedings herein were commenced before the Registrar of Titles, Lagos, where the present appellant was the applicant. The present respondents were described as the objectors to the application of the applicant to be registered as the proprietor of the freehold estate in property situate at and known as plots Nos. 5, 12, 13 and 14 of the Wright’s Estate Settlement in Ebute-Metta.

Before the learned Registrar of Titles, the applicant gave it in evidence that during the years 1945 and 1946 when he was working as a bricklayer to one Rufus Adekunle Wright (now deceased) he bought the four plots of land Nos. 5, 12, 13 and 14 of the Wright’s Estate Settlement. He gave it in evidence that he had paid Rufus Adekunle Wright by instalments for he produced in evidence three purchase receipts received in evidence as Exhibits A, A1 and A2.

Adekunle Wright did not give him a conveyance of the land until he died, but the Administrator General who then administered the estate of Rufus Adekunle Wright gave him a conveyance which he produced in evidence as Exhibit B. Prior to obtaining Exhibit B in 1954, and perhaps he was alarmed at the court’s decision that Rufus Adekunle Wright (then deceased) was only a life-tenant of the property, the applicant had approached the Trustees of the Settlement of Wright’s Estate and repurchased the same land from them.

He obtained from these Trustees a receipt He obtained from these Trustees a receipt produced in evidence as Exhibit A3. It also appeared that some 20 years ago the present applicant had sued the 2nd objector, Mrs Shogbesan, in the High Court, Lagos for trespassing on to plot No. 14 but that in that proceeding the applicant, as the plaintiff, was non-suited. The applicant however agreed before the learned Registrar of Titles that the 2nd objector had had her building standing on plot No. 14 for the best part of 20 years. Furthermore, and as stated before, in 1958, according to the applicant, he had repurchased the land from the Trustees of the Settlement of the Wright’s Estate and obtained from them the purchase receipt Exhibit A3 and a conveyance produced in evidence as Exhibit C. The applicant also produced before the learned Registrar of Titles a copy of the Wright’s Settlement (Exhibit E), the Order of Court appointing the Trustees of the Settlement (Exhibit D) and a copy of the judgment in the action between himself and the 2nd objector (Exhibit F).

The 1st objector only laid claim to plots Nos. 5 and 12 which he claimed to have purchased in 1959 from the late Rufus Adekunle Wright and produced in evidence his receipts Exhibits G & G 1. He later got a conveyance executed in his favour by the Administrator-General as the administrator of the estate of Rufus Adekunle Wright, who had since died, and these were admitted in evidence as Exhibits K and L. He also supported the story of the applicant that Rufus Adekunle Wright in 1950 sold plots Nos. 4 and 15 to the applicant. In support of the case of the 1st objector, Emmanuel Ayoade Shodipe, one of the Trustees of Wright’s Estate Settlement, testified that when Rufus Adekunle Wright started to sell plots of land out of the Wright’s Estate Settlement, there was no allotment plan. He however commissioned an allotment plan to be made but died before the lay-out plan was completed. The witness Shodipe testified that both the applicant and the objectors had lands on the Wright’s Estate Settlement and that indeed a building had always stood on the land of the 2nd objector and that there was a shed on the land of the 1st objector. When he was re-examined in the course of his evidence before the learned Registrar of Titles, he testified thus:

“The applicant brought only 2 plots within the Estate, one at Adebiyi Street and one at Adewale Street. The applicant used to be a member of our Association. He had left the Association.”

In the same way, the 2nd objector gave evidence before the learned Registrar of Titles. She stated that in 1949 she bought plot No. 13 and plot No. 14 from the late Rufus Adekunle Wright and paid him an amount of 50pounds for which she obtained a receipt Exhibit M. After the death of Rufus Adekunle Wright she paid the balance of 50pounds to the Administrator General, the administrator of his estate and produced the receipt Exhibit MI. She later obtained a conveyance of the land from the Administrator General. She produced this conveyance and it was admitted in evidence as Exhibit N. She further testifed that she started building on her land in 1955 and completed the building in 1959, since when she had let out the house to rent paying tenants.

We indicated at the beginning of this judgment that the respondents herein were before the Registrar of Titles describe as objectors. We propose in this judgment to keep that designation thereby ascribed to them but it is necessary to point out that apart from objecting to the registration of the applicant as the proprietor of the plots of land claimed by him, each of these objectors has sought as well to be registered as proprietor or proprietress of the plots of land he or she is also claiming. The learned Registrar of Titles only summarised the position thus in the course of his judgment:

“These four applications-MO 6283, 6918, 6881 and 6873 are consolidated since they all relate to the same subject-matter plots 5, 12, 13 and 14 in Block 11 of the Wright’s Allotment.

The applicant in MO 6283, Gabriel Fashoyin Oyedele (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) is seeking to register the four plots. The applicant MO 6879 and 6881 Phillip Banjoko Ogun (hereinafter referred to as the first objector) is seeking to register plots 5 and 12 while the applicant in Mo6918 (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd objector) is seeking to register plots 13 and 14.”

The learned Registrar of Titles was at considerable pains to examine all aspects of the case of the applicant: he came to the conclusion however that he did not establish his title to the land claimed by him and did not prove the execution of his conveyance or conveyances, Exhibit B, from the Administrator-General and Exhibit C from the Trustees of the Wright’s Estate Settlement. The learned Registrar of Titles also considered the case of the objectors. He held that apart from having failed to prove the execution of their several conveyances produced by them in evidence as grounding their respective titles to the lands claimed by them, the objectors had produced no evidence whatsoever by which the land sold to them by Rufus Adekunle Wright could be identified under the plot numbers which they now claim since, according to them, there was no lay-out plan of the lands of the Wright’s Estate Settlement when Rufus Adekunle Wright sold to them and the lay-out plan was not completed before he died on the 24th December, 1950. The learned Registrar of Titles then dismissed the case of the 1st objector. With respect to the 2nd objector, the learned Registrar of Titles recounted the evidence of her possession of the land and found as a fact that she had a building on the land for some 20 years past and that indeed for 13 years after the case in which he was non-suited, the applicant had done nothing to express his intention to lay claim to the lands comprised in the claim and occupied by the 2nd objector. On this point the learned Registrar observed as follows:

“From 1955 to date a period of thirteen years the 2nd objector remained on the land exercising the ordinary right of ownership. To my mind, the title of the applicant if any or that of his predecessor-in-title has been extinguished (See Perry vs. Clissold [1907] AC. 73 at p. 79). For these reasons, I direct that plots 13 and 14 of the Wright Allotment plan to be registered in favour of the 2nd objector. The applications of the applicant and 1st objector are dismissed.”

The applicant, i.e. G. F. Oyedele, appealed against the decision of the Registrar to the High Court, Lagos, where his appeal was heard by Taylor, Chief Justice. In the High Court, the learned Chief Justice on appeal dealt extensively with the effect of the Limitation Decree No. 88 of 1966 on the titles of the appellant and the 2nd objector as well as with the provisions of sections 38, 52 (h) and 62 of the Registration of Titles Act (as amended by the Lagos State Edict No. 17 of 1968) and concluded that the Registrar of Titles was right to order the registration of the 2nd objector as the proprietress of the freehold estate on plots Nos. 13 and 14. The learned Chief Justice concluded his judgment thus: