Gabriel Fashoyin Oyedele V. Sanni Ayinla & Ors. (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

T. O. ELIAS, C.J.N. 

This is an appeal from the judgment of Taylor C.J. in appeal No. LD/71A/68 delivered in the Lagos High Court on 10th March, 1969, by which he confirmed the judgment of the Registrar of Titles dismissing the application for registration of two plots of land known as numbers 27 and 28 in Wrights’ allotment, Yaba.

The admitted facts are these. Following upon the receipt of the application for registration, the first objector objected to the registration in respect of plot No. 27 and the second set of objectors objected to the registration of plot No. 28. The third objector did not appear in the proceedings before the Registrar. All the parties were agreed that the two plots sought to be registered formed part of the land of the late Rufus Alexander Wright which was covered by a deed of settlement. The applicant based his title on three documents:-

(a) a purchase receipt dated 3rd September, 1969.

(b) a deed of conveyance (exhibit H) dated 31st December, 1959 purporting to have been executed by the trustees of the estate and Rufus Alexander Wright; and

(c) a document purporting to be a conveyance from one Mrs. Gladys Ayodele Smith, one of the beneficiaries of the estate, marked exhibit B and dated 5th September, 1966.

As regards the first objector’s title, this is derived from two sources:(a) a deed of conveyance (exhibit P) made in his favour by the Administrator-General in consequence of a court order, and dated 9th April, 1954, and

(b) a receipt dated 24th October, 1954 purporting to be issued by Rufus Adekunle Wright, also a beneficiary under the settlement. In the case of the second set of objectors, their title is based on a purchase receipt of plot No. 28 issued by Rufus Adekunle Wright but unsupported by any deed conveyance. After hearing the parties before him, the Registrar of Titles dismissed the applicant’s case on the grounds:-

(i) That the deeds on which he based his title being less than twenty years old must be proved, and

(ii) That Mrs. Gladys Smith, alleged to have been a witness to exhibit H, was not called to prove due execution, it was only the applicant who gave evidence at all.

In support of his decision the Registrar cited Brett F.J.’s decision in Bamgbala v. Tunji Alade. F.S.C. 327/64. The Registrar similarly ruled against the second set of objectors by holding that Rufus Adekunle Wright, not being the sole surviving beneficiary, could not sell or convey as such, and that where the Administrator-General purported to convey to the first objector, the doctrine nemo dat quod non habet applies. Having thus ruled against both the applicant and the two groups of objectors on the question of title, the Registrar visited the site and thereafter held that he believed the evidence of the first objector and of his witnesses that he had been in possession of and exercised acts of ownership over plot 27 for a period of over twenty years before action brought; he also held that he believed the evidence of the second set of objectors and of their witnesses that “ever since the late Odubela bought plot 28, Mr. Oduwale has been using it as a garden.” The Registrar, in finding that all the objectors had exercised long and continued possession over the two plots, observed:-

“There is no doubt that the applicant has been associated with the Wright estate for a considerable length of time and he cannot pretend not to have known that the objectors have been on these plots as far back as 1945.”

From this decision the applicant appealed to the Lagos High Court on the following grounds:-

“1. The decision is against the weight of evidence.