CORAM

---

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Haruna Simon Tsammani-Justice of supreme court

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJI MUKAILA OLAYINKA AKINSANYA

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FEDERATION AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE

2. THE REGISTRAR OF TITLE, LAGOS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

PROPERTY LAW, LAND LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, REGISTRATION OF TITLES, PRINCIPLES OF ESTOPPEL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JUDGMENT, EVIDENCE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The dispute in this appeal revolves around the ownership of property known as No. 69, Balogun Street, Lagos. The fourth Respondent (Ebako & Company Limited) was the registered owner of the property. In 1978, the Federal Military Government of Nigeria, believing that the fourth Respondent belonged to Mr. F.A. Ijewere, forfeited all its properties including No. 69, Balogun Street to the Federal Government through the Public Officers (Forfeiture of Assets) Order, Legal Notice 33 of 1978.

The Federal Military Government subsequently instructed Messrs. Shote, Dawodu & Co. to sell three of the forfeited properties. The Appellant was the highest bidder for No. 69, Balogun Street, which was sold to him for N350,000.00. A Deed of Transfer dated September 12, 1979, was executed in favor of the Appellant, and he was put in possession. The deed was registered on March 21, 1980.

Meanwhile, the fourth Respondent protested the forfeiture, leading to a Tribunal of Inquiry that found the properties were wrongly forfeited. Consequently, the Federal Military Government promulgated the Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc.) Decree No. 54 of 1993, returning the properties to the fourth Respondent.

Prior to the Decree, the directors of the fourth Respondent had commenced an action (Suit No. FHC/L/94/79) seeking declarations that the forfeiture was illegal. The Federal High Court entered judgment in their favor on May 25, 1995, directing all properties be re-registered in the fourth Respondent’s name.

The Appellant commenced an action (Suit No. M/620/93) seeking declarations that the Decree did not divest him of his ownership rights. The fourth and third Respondents also filed a suit (Suit No. LD/4611/95) seeking declarations of their title and possession. The High Court consolidated these suits and ultimately dismissed the Appellant’s claims while granting the Respondents’ counter-claims.

The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal. Dissatisfied, he further appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed.

2.The judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in the Lagos Division and delivered on the 30th of April, 2012 in Appeal No. CA/L/950/2009 was affirmed.

3.The provisions of the Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc.) Decree No. 54 of 1993 abrogated all rights, interests, obligations, and liabilities in the property at No. 69, Balogun Street, Lagos acquired by the Federal Military Government and subsequently transferred to the Appellant.

4.The Appellant’s registration of title did not entitle him to protection under Sections 53(2) and 54 of the Registration of Titles Law, as his title was rendered void by statute.

5.The Supreme Court declined to consider the Appellant’s complaint about the trial Court’s judgment since the appeal was against the Court of Appeal’s judgment, not the trial Court’s judgment.

6.Parties to bear their respective costs of the appeal.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the Federal Government had any title to pass on to Ebako and Company Limited having regard to the fact that at the time the Federal Government promulgated Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc.) Decree No. 54 of 1993 it had already divested itself of its title in the said property.?

2.Whether the Appellant’s registration of his title at the Lands Registry did not entitle the Appellant to the protection of subsequent purchaser for value from a registered owner as stipulated in Section 53(2) of the Registration of Titles Law.?

3.Whether the lower Court was correct to conclude that the Appellant failed to impugn the validity of the judgment of the trial Court of 26th of June, 2009 which dismissed the Appellant’s claims and granted the third and fourth Respondents’ counter-claims.?

4.Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Appellant in Suit No. M/620/93 was estopped by the doctrine of standing by.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC PURPOSE LEGISLATION:

---

“Reading through the narrative contained in the earlier part of this judgment of the events leading to the promulgation of the Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc.) Decree No 54 of 1993, it is without doubt that the Decree was enacted to correct the wrongs done to the third and fourth Respondents, and others like them, in the forfeiture excise carried out by the Public Officers (Forfeiture of Assets) Order, Legal Notice No 33 of 1978. It was to rescind the forfeiture and to restore the properties to their original owners.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

INTERPRETATION OF DECREE NO. 54 OF 1993 – ABROGATION OF RIGHTS ACQUIRED CONSEQUENT ON FORFEITURE:

---

“Looking at the provisions of the Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc.) Decree No 54 of 1993 with this purpose in mind, the meaning that is assignable to Section 1 thereof is that it voided, nullified, invalidated and rendered ineffective the forfeiture of the properties listed in the Schedule to the Decree carried out by the Public Officers (Forfeiture of Assets) Order, Legal Notice No. 33 of 1978. And its Section 2 abrogated and annihilated all the rights, interests, obligations and liabilities that became vested in the Federal Military Government or State Government in the said properties by reason of the forfeiture and restored properties to their original owners.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

PRESUMPTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE CONSEQUENCES – APPLICATION IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION:

---

“There is a presumption against the legislature intending what is unreasonable, unjust and inconvenient in the interpretation of statute. In this wise, the Courts have held that commonsense must be applied in construing statutes and the construction agreeable to justice and reason must always be adopted.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

PROTECTION OF REGISTERED TITLE – LIMITS OF PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 53(2) OF REGISTRATION OF TITLES LAW:

---

“Thus, the submission of Counsel to the Appellant that the provisions of Sections 53(2) and 54 of the Registration of Titles Law granted automatic and iron clad protection to the title of the Appellant as a second registered owner of property against the defects in the registered title of his vendor is very incorrect. In the present case, the title of both the Federal Military Government and of the Appellant to the property at No. 69, Balogun Street, Lagos were rendered void, invalid and ineffective and were abrogated by statute, the Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc.) Decree No 54 of 1993. In this circumstance, the protection under Section 53(2) of the Registration of Titles Law of Lagos State was not available to protect the Appellant’s registered title in the property.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE – BURDEN OF PROOF AND REQUIREMENTS:

---

“A bona fide purchaser for value is one who has purchased property for valuable consideration without notice of any prior right or title, which if upheld, will derogate from the title which he has purported to acquire… The Appellant failed to lead cogent evidence to show that he was a bona fide purchaser for value as at the date of the registration of his title. So, even if the protection under Sections 53(2) and 54 of the Registration of Titles Law was available to the Appellant, he did not prove his entitlement to the protection.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

DUTY OF APPELLATE COURT IN REVIEWING DECISIONS – FOCUS ON CORRECTNESS OF DECISION RATHER THAN REASONING:

---

“The law is that the duty of an appellate Court is to decide whether the decision of the lower Court was right and not whether the reasons or modalities regarding how the decision was reached were right, an appellate Court is more concerned with the correctness of the decision in question and not otherwise.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT – LIMITATION TO APPEALS FROM COURT OF APPEAL:

---

“This Court has no jurisdiction to consider or entertain complaints against the judgment of the trial Court. Its role is limited to seeing whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeal that affirmed the judgment of the trial Court is correct.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

ATTACKING FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT – REQUIREMENT TO DEMONSTRATE PERVERSITY:

---

“An appellant who desires an appellate Court to interfere with the decision or judgment of a lower Court must visibly demonstrate the perversity of the findings made by that Court and that where an appellant fails to do so, an appellate Court has no business interfering with the findings of the lower Court.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF JUDGMENT – BURDEN ON APPELLANT TO UPSET BASIS OF JUDGMENT:

---

“The law is that the judgment of the lower Court, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, by Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, enjoys a presumption of regularity which is rebuttable. An appellant desirous of having such a judgment set aside must upset its basis by showing that the reasoning and the findings contained in the judgment are not supported by either facts of the case or by the applicable law or both.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

BRIEF WRITING SKILLS – QUALITIES OF A GOOD BRIEF OF ARGUMENTS:

---

“One of the invaluable assets that a Counsel must always possess is drafting skills. Briefs of arguments in an appeal contain the story of a party on which the appellate Court Justices are called upon to adjudicate. Like all good stories, the arguments in the brief must flow; they must be consistent, they must the concise, they must be comprehensive, they must be comprehensible; and they must be accurate. Some of the eternal qualities of a good brief of arguments are brevity and precision. It must not be too short as to leave out the essentials and must not be too long as to become otiose.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

REGISTRATION OF TITLE – INABILITY TO CURE DEFECTS IN TITLE:

---

“It has been held since PHILLIPS v. OGUNDIPE (1967) 1 ALL NLR 258 that the provisions of Section 53(2) and Section 54 of the Registration of Titles Law does not cure a defect in title conferred on a registered owner. Mere registration of title cannot validate a fraudulent or invalid transfer of title. Thus, the Appellant does not have absolute protection against any defects in the title of his vendor.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

 

---

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT – CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS:

---

“It is not in dispute that appeal lies to the Supreme Court only from the Court of Appeal, as is stipulated in Section 233(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (hereinafter refers to as the Constitution) thus:- ‘233(1) The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other Court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal.’ Put in simple terms, the Constitution, did not make provisions for appeals to go directly from High Court to Supreme Court. There is an intermediate Court, Court of Appeal, which serves as ‘a clearing house’, so to speak, between both Courts.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

 

---

DUTY OF COUNSEL – RESPONSIBILITY TO REPRESENT CLIENT’S CASE EFFECTIVELY:

---

“A Counsel has a duty, once he accepts a brief, to put his client’s case forward in the best possible manner, with a proper understanding of the relevant legal principles, and he should not rely on the good fortune of the knowledge of the Judge or Justices hearing the case.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

•Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

•Public Officers (Forfeiture of Assets) Order, Legal Notice 33 of 1978

•Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc.) Decree No. 54 of 1993

•Registration of Titles Law, Cap 166, Laws of Lagos State 1972

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT