THE QUEEN VS BELLO
September 4, 2025SABOTU ARIKU & ANOR VS YESUFU BALE AJIWOGBO
September 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1962-11) Legalpedia 75129 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Sat Nov 17, 1962
Suit Number: SC 478/1961
CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS
APPELLANTS
BANK OF WEST AFRICA, LIMITED (formerly BANK OF BRITISH WEST AFRICA, LIMITED)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
BANKING LAW—MORTGAGE—REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT—INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES- LAW OF EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The defendant/appellant was sued by the plaintiff/respondent claiming for the three certificates which had been deposited by the 2nd defendant with it to a mortgage and was to execute a legal mortgage but never did and purported to assign the lease to the 1st defendant, after the bank had lodged the certificates with the Registrar of Title for a purpose.
HELD
The appeal of the defendants in the High Court of Lagos Suit No. 137/59 from the judgment of 12 December 1960 is hereby dismissed with two hundred guineas costs.
ISSUES
The learned trial Judge erred in law in admitting as evidence the document exhibit P.6., the said document being inadmissible by virtue of the provisions of the Land Registration Act.
that the learned Chief Justice erred in not treating the Bank’s letter as an admission; in failing to apportion the indebtedness and securites; in depriving Mansour of a defence open to him in law; in ordering specific performance without a finding of fact on the amount of the debt; and in not directing his mind to the issue whether Mansour was liable on the evidence as a guarantor “of any indebtedness of Ali Mansour and Sons Ltd. sued upon and if so for what amount”.
That the learned Chief Justice erred in holding that P.6 is the document referred to in para. 5 of the Statement of Claim (in its final form) which alleges that the memorandum was executed in or about March, 1956.
The learned Chief Justice erred in law in holding that a mortgagee who has failed to give notice of the mortgage to the re-gistrar within the time prescribed by section 58(2) of the Regist-ration of Titles Act could protect such interest by lodging a cau-tion or by registration thereof as an encumbrance.
The learned Chief Justice erred in law in failing to observe that the interest of a mortgagee created off the Register is not an in-terest which is capable of being protected by caution or by registration thereof as an encumbrance.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REGISTRATION OF TITLES
The point to note is that the Titles Act (section referred to for short) is based on a different conception and has another aim; that can easily be seen by looking at section 48 and on to section 54, which protects the registered purchaser for value from unregistered interests affecting the estate of any previous registered owner. Per BAIRAMIAN F. J.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Registration of Titles Act
The Land Registration Act 1924
