AKINLO IFEDAYO V THE STATE
April 16, 2025SALE ADO VS. THE STATE
April 16, 2025GERHARD HUEBNER vs. AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. LTD (AIEP/DANA)
Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (SC) 16151
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 7, 2017
Suit Number: SC.198/2006
CORAM
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JSC
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI JSC
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS JSC
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JSC
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE JSC
PARTIES
GERHARD HUEBNER APPELLANTS
AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. LTD (AIEP/DANA)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, TRUST LAW, EQUITY, EVIDENCE, PROPERTY LAW, LAND USE ACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALIENATION OF LAND, FOREIGN NATIONALS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, Gerhard Huebner, a German national, was the plaintiff at the Kaduna State High Court. In 1975, the District Head of Kajuru District in Kachia Local Government Area of Kaduna State, acting on the instruction of the Emir of Zaria, granted the Appellant permission to build a temporary weekend hospitality resort on a hilltop in Kajuru Village. The Appellant initially built a temporary structure and later constructed a permanent one, named The Kajuru Castle.
Around 1981, seeking to expand the business, the Appellant commenced negotiations to purchase the surrounding land, measuring 70 hectares. In 1986, while the negotiations were still ongoing, the Appellant was appointed Managing Director of the Respondent company. Being a German national, the Appellant was advised that, as an alien, he could not legally hold an estate in land in Kaduna State. Acting on this advice, he purchased the land in the name of the Respondent company. The receipt evidencing the purchase was issued in both his name and the Respondent’s name.
Subsequently, a certificate of occupancy dated January 1, 1997, was issued to the Appellant by Kachia Local Government. This certificate was used to apply for a statutory certificate of occupancy from the Kaduna State Government, which was issued on March 6, 1999. Both certificates were issued in the name of the Respondent and were admitted in evidence as Exhibits A1 and A3, respectively.
The Appellant instituted an action at the Kaduna State High Court, claiming that the Respondent held the legal estate in the Kajuru land upon a resulting trust for his benefit. After a trial spanning over six years, the High Court, on November 5, 2002, dismissed the Appellant’s claims for lack of merit. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was likewise dismissed on May 11, 2006.
The present appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
HELD
-
The appeal was dismissed.
-
The Supreme Court held that the Appellant, being an alien, had no legal capacity to hold an interest in land in Kajuru Local Government Area of Kaduna State under the Land Use Act, and therefore could not benefit from property which he was legally incapable of owning.
-
The Court ruled that the oral evidence presented by the Appellant at the trial court was not intended to contradict Exhibits A1 and A3, but rather to support and justify his role in the acquisition of the property.
-
The Court held that while a constructive trust is imposed by equity on the grounds of conscience and is not based on the presumed prior intention of the parties, equity does not operate in a vacuum, and a party seeking equity must come with clean hands.
-
The Court declined to depart from its previous decision in Ogunola v. Eiyekole (1990) regarding the interpretation of “any person” under the Land Use Act, reaffirming that the phrase applies only to Nigerian citizens and not to aliens.
-
The Court held that the Appellant could not rely on his own wrongful act to claim that the certificate of occupancy issued in the name of the Respondent was null and void.
-
No order was made as to costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the trial court’s exclusion of both documentary and oral evidence adduced by the Appellant to establish the circumstances under which it could be implied that the Respondent held the legal estate in the subject property upon a resulting or constructive trust in his favor?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Appellant was required to prove an implied resulting or constructive trust by credible and reliable evidence, demonstrating both a grant of the trust by him and its acceptance by the Respondent?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INTERPRETATION OF “ANY PERSON” UNDER THE LAND USE ACT – EXCLUSION OF ALIENS FROM LAND OWNERSHIP:
“The learned trial judge, in interpreting Section 36(1) of the Land Use Act, placed much reliance on the word ‘ANY’ to include foreigners. However, Section 1 of the Act specifically limits its benefits to Nigerians. It is my view that a non-Nigerian cannot apply for a statutory or customary right of occupancy because Section 36(1) provides for ‘ANY PERSON,’ but aliens are not Nigerians. I have reproduced Section 1 of the Act here to re-emphasize that the Act was promulgated for the benefit of Nigerians:
‘1. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation is hereby vested in the Military Governor of that State, and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.’
— Per OLAJIDE OLATAWURA, JSC (as cited by PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC)”
TRUST DEFINED – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A TRUST RELATIONSHIP:
“Trust is defined on page 1513 of Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, as the right enforceable solely in equity to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds the legal title. Trust involves three elements, namely:
-
-
A trustee, who holds the trust property and is subject to equitable duties to deal with it for the benefit of another.
-
-
-
A beneficiary, to whom the trustee owes equitable duties to deal with the trust property for his benefit.
-
-
-
Trust property, which is held by the trustee for the beneficiary.”
-
— Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC
EVIDENCE IN CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – VALIDITY OF TITLE DOCUMENT:
“Where a party claims certain property that is held in constructive trust for his own benefit, he has a duty to prove that the title document in possession of the trustee is valid and in proper custody. The moment he successfully contradicts and renders the title document in the name of the trustee invalid, his claim automatically fails, since the success of his claim depends largely on the validity of the title documents in the name of the trustee.”
— Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC
NATURE OF CONSTRUCTIVE OR IMPLIED TRUST – EQUITY’S INTERVENTION:
“A constructive or implied trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such a manner that the holder of the legal title may not, in good conscience, retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.”
— Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – NOT BASED ON PRIOR INTENTION OF PARTIES:
“Constructive trust, as in this case, is imposed by equity on the ground of conscience and is not based on the prior presumed intention of the parties.”
— Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC
IMPLIED TRUST – ARISES BY OPERATION OF LAW:
“An implied trust is founded upon the unexpressed intention of the settlor, and it is raised and created by implication of law from the surrounding circumstances of the case. It does not require an agreement between the settlor and the trustee.”
— Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC
LEGAL CAPACITY OF ALIENS TO HOLD INTEREST IN LAND – CONSEQUENCE OF INCAPACITY:
“The Appellant, being an alien, had no legal capacity to hold an interest in land in Kajuru Local Government Area of Kaduna State. This being so, and by virtue of the Latin legal maxim Nemo dat quod non habet, the Appellant cannot benefit from property which he was incapable of owning.”
— Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC
JURISDICTION OF COURT LIMITED TO PARTIES BEFORE IT – THIRD PARTY INTERESTS:
“Kajuru Nigeria Ltd is not a party to this appeal and was not made a party to this case at the trial. The law is settled that a court can only exercise its jurisdiction or power over parties before it and strictly in respect of the case between them, based on issues raised and reliefs sought. It cannot do so concerning, or to the extent that it may affect, persons who are not parties before it, and must resist the temptation to make pronouncements to that end. The court must confine its decision to the parties and their claims.”
— Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JSC
EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW – CLEAN HANDS PRINCIPLE:
“There was no proof of a valid transfer by trust between the plaintiff and the defendant’s company, and no reliable evidence was adduced by the plaintiff in that regard. Now, even if there was any agreement or understanding between them in that regard, the valid question is, in light of the circumstance where the plaintiff cannot own land, can he give interest to the defendant in something he himself does not and could not own? I do not think so. If he does or attempts to do so, that would amount to a wrongful act or default. He who seeks equity must also do equity and must come with clean hands. It is also an age-old principle of law that even equity follows law and cannot circumvent the provisions of the law.”
— Per AMIRU SANUSI, JCA (as cited by MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC)
ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – EFFECT OF REPRESENTATION:
“If a man, by his words or conduct, willfully endeavors to cause another to believe in a certain state of things which the first knows to be false, and if the second believes in such a state of things and acts upon his belief, he who knowingly made this false statement is estopped from averring afterwards that such a state of things does not exist at the time. If a man, either in express terms or by conduct, makes a representation to another of the existence of a state of facts which he intends to be acted upon in a certain way, and it is acted upon in that way in the belief of the existence of such a state of facts to the damage of him who so believes and acts, the first is estopped from denying the existence of such a state of facts.”
— Per EJIWUNMI, JSC (as cited by MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC)
COURTS WILL NOT ENFORCE ILLEGAL CONTRACTS – PUBLIC POLICY:
“Where a transaction is, on the face of it, or from the facts adduced in evidence or the surrounding circumstances, apparently illegal, the court must act to enforce and protect the law of the land. The illegality disclosed here is the attempt by the appellant to circumvent the provisions of the Land Use Act, and this is against public policy. A contract may be against public policy either from the nature of the acts to be performed or from the nature of the consideration.”
— Per KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, JSC
IMPLIED OR RESULTING TRUST – ARISES BY OPERATION OF LAW NOT BY AGREEMENT:
“An implied or resulting trust arises from the presumed intention of the owner, which, in turn, arises by operation of law and not by the agreement of the parties. Obviously, there is no getting around the fact that he knew that, not being a Nigerian, he could not hold a legal estate in land.”
— Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF LAND TENURE SYSTEMS IN NIGERIA – INTENT OF LAND USE ACT:
“The term ‘land tenure’ is derived from the Latin word tenere, which means ‘to hold.’ Land is of fundamental importance in traditional Nigerian society and is communally owned, although family or corporate ownership existed side by side with communal ownership. In a way, customary laws of land tenure have, in the past, given the farmer a feeling of reasonable permanence on the land he cultivates… In 1962, the Northern Regional Government enacted the Land Tenure Law, subjecting all land in that region to the control of the Governor of the region for the use and benefit of all northern people… Following this, in 1978, the national government promulgated the Land Use Act to unify the tenure system across the country.”
— Per KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
2. Land Tenure Law Cap. 59 Vol. II Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963
3. Evidence Act
4. Native Land Acquisition of 1900
5. Land and Native Rights Ordinance of 1916
