CORAM

---

ALEXANDER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

SHELL BP PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The parties entered into a lease agreement for certain houses and executed a deed of lease which was not in the form prescribed by the registration of titles Act

---

HELD

---

The court held that the deed of lease is void for non- compliance with the Registration of Titles Act but that there was a concluded lease agreement between the parties for a lease and that the appellants were entitled to return of deposit paid with interest.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lease Exhibit W satisfied the requirements of the Registration of Titles Act.

2. Whether there was a concluded agreement for lease of 5 houses between the parties

3 whether the award of general damages by the lower court is justified

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ASSESMENTS OF DAMAGES

---

“There should have been no award, not because the plaintiffs are not entitled to it but because they failed to supply the necessary materials on which an assessment of their loss or damage can be assessed. Per Coker J.S.C

---

REQUIREMENTS OF REGISTRATION OF TITLES ACT

---

Although Section 14(1) has employed the word “may” in its requirement of compliance, it seems to us clear that where the dealing contemplated is one for which provision is made in the prescribed manner, the transferor or transferee has no alternative but to use such “prescribed manner” in order to make the disposition or dealing valid under the Act. Per Coker J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. Ch 341

2. Chanrai & Co. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Khawam (1965) 1 NLR 182;

3. Maiden Electronic Works Ltd. v. The Attorney-General of the Federation (1974) 1 S.C. 53

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

The Registration of Titles Act

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT