S.O.AJANAKU VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
August 2, 2025COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V. ANTHONY ABURIME
August 2, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1979) Legalpedia (SC) 16511
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 2, 1979
Suit Number: SC 89/1975
CORAM
GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
ANTHONY N. ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
J.O.O. IMANA PLAINTIFF(S) / RESPONDENT(S)
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The defendant/ appellant in this appeal, by a Conveyance, sold and conveyed a parcel of land of which she alleged she was seized in fee simple in possession free from incumbrances, to the plaintiff/respondent in consideration of a sum of £245. She described herself, in the Deed of Conveyance, as the beneficial owner. The plaintiff proceeded to develop the land and to make improvements thereon in the course of which he was challenged by a third party who laid claim to title to the land. A title which he later successfully established in court, leading to the dispossession of the plaintiff of the piece of land. The plaintiff in turn took action against the defendant claiming special and general damages respectively for breach of covenants for title contained in and quiet enjoyment implied in a Deed of Conveyance. judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for special damages only. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit
ISSUES
The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that there had been breach of the implied covenant for title by the defendant/appellant in the circumstances of this case.
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the doctrine of “Caveat Emptor” which is applicable to the circumstances of this case by holding that it was for the defendant/appellant to disclose defects in her title and not for plaintiff/respondent to investigate it when the claim for damages arose not out of “contract” but out of an “executed conveyance of land.”
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law as to the measure of damages in this case by allowing the plaintiff/respondent to recover more than “the purchase price” on the basis of total failure of consideration when he held thus: “I consider the proper course is to treat the purchase price and other expenses as standing in the same position and each as having been paid for a consideration which has wholly failed.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHERE THE COVENANTS FOR TITLE ARE GENERAL, THEY WILL NOT BE QUALIFIED BY REFERENCE TO OTHER COVENANTS, UNLESS THERE ARE WORDS TO CONNECT THEM
“Where the covenants for title are general, and by their language absolute against all persons, they will not be qualified by reference to other covenants, unless there are words either in the absolute covenants themselves or elsewhere in the instrument to connect them.” Per ANIAGOLU, JSC.)
SUBMISSION OF ISSUES RAISED IN PLEADINGS
“It is clear to us that once pleadings have been settled, and issues joined, the duty of the court is to proceed to the trial of the issues and if one party fails or refuses to submit the issues he has raised in his pleadings for trial by giving or calling evidence in their support, the trial Judge must, unless there are other legal reasons dictating to the contrary, resolve the case against the defaulting party.” Per ANIAGOLU, JSC.)
DUTY OF VENDOR WHERE SUPERIOR TITLE ARISES
“If the purchaser was disturbed by anyone having a superior title, the vendor could be made liable in damages or, in the case of eviction, be compelled to give lands of equal value in compensation.” Per ANIAGOLU, JSC.)
DEFECT IN TITLE TO LAND
“A defect in title to land is not easily ascertainable as one would easily discover a defect in respect of specific goods.” Per ANIAGOLU, JSC.)
CASES CITED
The Gold Coast and Ashanti Electric Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Attorney-General of the Gold Coast (1937) 3 WACA 215
Smith v. Compton (1832) 3 B & Ad. 189; 110 ER 71
STATUTES REFERRED TO
