CORAM

---

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

BELLO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

IDIGBE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ESO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. MRS VICTORIA OMOLARA

2. BUCKNOR-MACLEAN

3. MISS LOUISA KOFOWOROLA

4. BUCKNOR

APPELLANTS 

---

INLAKS LIMITED

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LEASE – REGISTER OF TITLES

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants’ mother entered into a lease with the respondent in respect of plot 53 in sub-Area 3 of the Lagos Central planning Scheme for a term of 99 years. Thereafter, the respondents registered the lease under the Register of Titles and were issued with a land certificate. Subsequently, the appellants contended that the said registration was defective.

 

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that once the Registrar accepted such an instrument for registration and has in fact registered it, the registrar’s acceptance and registration of the same is conclusive of its sufficiency in point of form.

 

---

ISSUES

---

(i) Does failure to use the forms aforesaid (i.e. the special forms set out in the schedule to Cap.181) in respect of a dealing under the Act ipso facto invalidate the dealing (as decided in Jammal (supra) )? and if it does,

(ii)  will the dealing remain invalid even after the Registrar of Titles (hereinafter referred to simply as “the Registrar”) has not only accepted the same for registration but has in fact registered the dealing under the Act (as decided in Owumi (Supra) )?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ON THE GENERAL RULES GUIDING FORMS IN SCHEDULES TO ENACTMENTS

---

As a general rule forms in schedules to enactments are inserted merely as examples and guides and are meant to be followed implicitly only so far as circumstances permit.’ Per C. Idigbe, JSC

 

---

ON THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE REGISTRATION OF AN INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN REGISTERED LAND BY THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES

---

When an instrument of transfer of interest in registered land which strictly complies with the appropriate form set out in the First Schedule for such a transfer is used there is no question that it must be accepted by the Registrar for registration and the protection given to such a dealing under the Act is guaranteed. When, however, the instrument used is not in strict compliance with the appropriate form set out in the schedule, the parties to it are, indeed, taking the risk that the instrument may be  rejected by the Registrar for registration depending on whether or not such instrument is in substantial compliance with the appropriate form required for similar dealings under the Act; and in deciding whether or not there has been such “substantial compliance” it is necessary to examine the document or instrument to see whether it satisfies the scheme of the Act, or runs contrary to it. What is required, is that the instrument when properly examined, should ex facie show that it is an instrument made in pursuance of Cap.181′ Per C. Idigbe, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Shell BP. Petroleum Company v Jammal engineering (Nigeria) Ltd. (1974) 1 All NLR 542

2. Owumi v. Paterson Zochonis & Co. (Nigeria) Ltd. (1974) 1 All NLR part 2, 107

3. Morelle v. Wakeling (1955) 1 All ER 708

4. Jaffar v. Ladipo (1969) 1 All NLR 165

5. Frazer v. Walker (1967) 1All ER 649

6. Boyd v. Mayor, and the corporation of Wellington (1924) NZLR 1174.

7. Smith v. Morrison (1974) 1 All ER 957.

8. Chelsea and Walham Green Building Society v. Armstrong (1951) 1 CH. 853

9. Crowley v. Templeton (Registrar of Titles, Victoria) (1914) 17 CLR 459.

10. Barlett v. Gibbs (1843) 5 Man. & G. 81 at 96 also 134 ER 490 at 496.

11.  Walsh v. Lonsdale 21 Ch. D.9)

12. Crowley v. Templeton (1914) 17 CLR 457

13. Crowley v. Templeton (Registrar of Titles, Victoria) (1914) 17 CLR 457 at pp. 464-5, 466-7.

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

 Registration of Titles Act Cap.181, 1958

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT