G. A. Odeneye V Oyeyipo Alakata (1977)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. OBASEKI, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State (Bakare, J.) given on appeal from the Acting Deputy Registrar of Titles (Mr. Olusola Thomas) who dismissed the objection of the appellant to an application for first registration of property at Denton Street, Ebute Metta under title No. M08390 and ordered the registration of the respondent as owner of the freehold estate in fee simple in the property.

The facts which formed the basis of the proceedings are as follows:

The Oloto Chieftaincy family originally owned absolutely under native law and custom the parcel of land referred to in the proceeding as the land in dispute which we will hereafter refer to as the land in respect of which the respondent applied to be registered owner. The Oloto Chieftaincy family on the 5th day of July, 1969 gave receipt Exhibit ‘C’ for 50pounds paid by the respondent as price of this piece or parcel of land (the family) sold to the respondent and on the 20th day of July, 1969 executed a conveyance, Exhibit A, in respect of the land in his favour.

On 2nd day of  October, 1969, the respondent made a written application for extension of time to lodge his document for first registration under Registration of Titles Act. He paid 2pounds late fee. There was no formal order and if there was, none (granting extension of time) was exhibited. However, it appears the application was advertised and the appellant filed his objection to it.

The Registrar of Titles heard the matter, dismissed the objection and ordered the applicant to be registered.

The objector’s appeal against the Acting Deputy Registrar’s judgment failed and being aggrieved, the objector has brought this further appeal to this court. The appellant’s case was that he bought the parcel of land in 1967 but only obtained conveyance Exhibit E from the Oloto family on 20th December, 1969, and in February, 1970 made the application for first registration. This application was not taken along with the application of the respondent and after hearing evidence on the objection, the learned Acting Deputy Registrar of Titles in the closing paragraph of his judgment delivered on the 24th day of March, 1972 said:

“Exhibit “A” (applicant’s conveyance) was executed on 20th July, 1969 and application for first registration made on 2nd October, 1969 as shown by the Lands Registry’s stamp on the document.  Exhibit E (the objector’s conveyance) was executed on the 20th December, 1969, and application for first registration made on 2nd February, 1970 as stamped thereon on the document.  As between these two instruments, it is apparent Exhibit ‘A’ has priority over Exhibit E and the applicant’s title must be preferred.

The objector has testified that he had spent 5000pounds on the building over the land in dispute and claimed to be in possession. He has not proved acquiescence or standing by on the part of the applicant and the applicant has established a superior title to the land (see Da Costa v. Ikomi SC.733/66 (unreported) delivered in the Supreme Court on 20th December, 1968 and Agboola v. Abimbola SC.366/67 (unreported) delivered in the Supreme Court on 4th July, 1969.  The objection must be dismissed with costs. I order that the applicant be registered as the owner of the land claimed.”

The appeal lodged by the objector to the High Court was heard and dismissed by Bakare,  J., on the 14th day of May, 1974, in the following terms:

“The Registrar in the court below painstakingly considered the issues before him and I am unable to say that his judgment is against the weight of evidence.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Finally, I wish to add this point for future guidance of the Registrar of Titles. For the sake of clarity, record of proceedings emanating from his office should indicate where Section 5 of the Registration of Titles Act is relevant, whether extension of time was granted by the High Court or the Registrar.”

It is against this dismissal of the appeal to the High Court that this appeal has been lodged and the most substantial point taken, as we shall see in the course of the judgment, arose from the remark made by the learned appellate Judge by way of advice to the Registrar of Titles on the need to indicate whether extension of time was granted by the High Court or by the Registrar.