The fallibility of Supreme Court in Abdullahi v Adetutu on admissibility of unregistered land instruments in Nigeria

Abstract

In Benjamin v Kalio, a full court of seven Justices of the Supreme Court reversed earlier decisions on admissibility of unregistered land instruments in Nigeria. Applying constitutional provisions, Benjamin’s case established that such documents are admissible under the Evidence Act which exclusively regulates admissibility of evidence in Nigeria. However, in Abdullahi v Adetutu, a regular court of five Justices simply restated the old rule without making reference to the Constitution, Evidence Act, or Benjamin’s case which has not been upturned by the court. Following the principle of judicial precedent, it appears that the procedure adopted in Abdullahi’s case was erroneous.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Anthony Osaro Ewere, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Private and Property Law, Faculty of Law, University of Benin, Nigeria. He is also a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Black’s Law Dictionary 7th edition; Gbenebichie v Awoshika [1952] 14 WACA 101, 105.

2 [2018] 285 LRCN 215.

3 Anyabunsi v Ugwunze [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt 401) 255, 271; Atanda v Hon. Commissioner for Land and Housing, Kwara State [2018] 1 NWLR (Pt 1599) 32, 54, 55.

4 For instance, see s 37 Land Instrument (Preparation and Registration) Law Cap 74 Laws of Rivers State 1999; Ojugbele v Olasoji [1982] 1 All NLR (Pt 1) 43; Edokpolor & Co Ltd v Ohenhen [1994] 7 NWLR (Pt 358) 511; Ogbimi v Niger Construction Limited [2006] All FWLR (Pt 317) 390.

5 Shittu v Fashawe [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt 946) 671; Atanda v Hon. Commissioner for Land and Housing, Kwara State [2018] 1 NWLR (Pt 1599) 32.

6 Aderemi, JSC confirmed in Akinduro v Alaya [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt 1057) 312, 330 that ‘Land Instruments Registration Law has substantially universal contents in all the States in Nigeria’.

7 [2018] 285 LRCN 215.

8 Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the country, based on the principle of stare decisis. See Dingyadi v INEC [2011] 10 NWLR (Pt 1255) 342.

9 In Amaechi v INEC (2008) 158 LRCN 1 at 168, Onnoghen, JSC rightly stated that it is a settled law that a previous decision is not to be departed from or even followed if the facts or the law applicable in the previous case are distinguishable from those in the latter case. See also AO Obilade, The Nigerian Legal System (Spectrum, Ibadan 1999)114; Osaretin Aigbovo, Introduction to Nigerian Legal System (Sylva, Akure 2000) 78.

10 The Supreme Court jealously guides its decision and does not easily reverse itself. It will only reverse its decision if it is convinced that (i) the previous decision is inconsistent with the Constitution or that it is erroneous in law; (ii) the previous decision was given per incuriam; or (iii) the previous decision is occasioning miscarriage of justice or perpetuating injustice. See Odi v Osafile [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt 1) 17 at 35; O Aigbovo and AO Ewere ‘Adjudicating women’s customary law rights in Nigeria: has the tide finally turned?’ (2016) 22(2) East Afr J Peace Hum Rights 214, 229.

11 The Black’s Law Dictionary 7^th edition, defines precedent as ‘[a] decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar facts or issues’.

12 (2019) 293 LRCN 1.

13 Halima Abiola ‘In Abdullahi v Adetutu, Supreme Court departs from Benjamin v Kalio on admissibility of unregistered registrable instruments’, www.loyalnigerianlawyer.com, accessed on 1 September 2019; Unini Chioma ‘Nigerian Supreme Court departs from its recent decision on admissibility of unregistered registrable land instruments’ The Nigerian Lawyer, July 26, 2019.

14 The Supreme Court noted in Okoye v Dumez (Nigeria) Ltd (1952) 2 NSCC 780 at 796, that LIRLs were intended to give some measure of security and protection against fraud.

15 Emeka Chianu, Law of Sale of Land (Panaf Press, Abuja 2009) 216.

16 EO Omuojine, ‘The Land Use Act and the English Doctrine of Estate’ (1999) 22(3) J Niger Inst Estate Surveyors Valuers 54–56.

17 Ibid 224; Charles Harpum, Stuart Bridge, and Martin Dixon, Megarry & Wade The Law of Real Property (7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2008) 146.

18 Emeka Chianu, Law of Sale of Land (Panaf Press 2009) 216.

19 [1999] 3 NWLR (Pt 593) 82

20 Emeka Chianu, Law of Sale of Land (Panaf Press 2009) 226, 254.

21 Chianu also added that the copy of land document deposited at the Land Registry for the purpose of registration helps to ensure that parties have safe custody of their land document. This becomes useful where the original or duplicate copy of the document is misplaced. See Emeka Chianu, Law of Sale of Land (Panaf Press 2009) 216, 224.

22 AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: Reversing the Law on Admissibility of Land Instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 185.

23 (1966) 1 All NLR 74.

24 Ibid 76.

25 On effect of registration, s 26 Land Instrument Registration Law, Cap 81 Laws of Bendel State 1979, as applicable in Edo State provides: ‘Registration shall not cure any defect in any instrument or, subject to the provisions of this law, confer upon it any effect or validity which it would not otherwise have had.’ Also see the case of Omiyade v Macaulay [2009] 7 NWLR (Pt 1141) 596 at 628 where the court stated that registration does not cure defect or validate irregularity in title.

26 (1952) 2 NSCC 780.

27 Ibid 796.

28 Anthony Osaro Ewere, NEITI and Good Governance in the Nigerian Oil Industry (Ambik Press 2011) 61.

29 AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: Reversing the Law on Admissibility of Land Instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 185.

30 EO Omuojine, ‘The Land Use Act and the English Doctrine of Estate’ (1999) 22(3) J Niger Inst Estate Surveyors Valuers 54–56.

31 MC Bardi, ‘Geographic Information System as a Tool for Successful Implementation of the Land Use Decree’ (1998) 29(1) Quantity Surveyor 17–22; EO Omuojine, ‘The Land Use Act and the English Doctrine of Estate’ (1999) 22(3) J Niger Inst Estate Surveyors Valuers 54–56.

32 OW Igwe, Land Instruments Registration and Title in Nigeria (LAP, Germany 2014) 13–21.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid; Muhammad Bashar Nuhu, ‘Enhancing Land Titling and Registration in Nigeria’ (Paper presented at the FIG working week in Eilat, Israel on 3–8 May 2009) 3.

36 OW Igwe, Land Instruments Registration and Title in Nigeria (LAP, Germany 2014) 13–21.

37 AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: Reversing the Law on Admissibility of Land Instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 184.

38 Benjamin v Kalio [2018] 285 LRCN 215.

39 See s 20 of Land Instrument (Preparation and Registration) Law Cap 74 Laws of Rivers State 1999. Other laws with similar provisions include s 15 Land Instrument Registration Law Cap 72 Laws of former Eastern Nigeria 1963 as applicable to South Eastern States; s 16 Lands Instrument Registration Law Cap 81 Laws of Bendel State 1976 as applicable in Edo State; s 15 Lands Instrument Registration Law Cap L58 Laws of Lagos State 2004.

40 In Jammal v Saidi [1933] 11 NLR 86, where an unregistered lease agreement was erroneously admitted in evidence by the trial court, the Court of Appeal expunged the document from the court proceedings on appeal.

41 Ogbimi v Niger Construction Limited [2006] 9 NWLR (Pt 986) 474 and Akinduro v Alaya [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt 1057) 312, are some of the cases decided after 1979 where the court refused to admit unregistered land documents in compliance with provisions of LIRL.

42 [1943] 15 NLR 57.

43 Ibid, 59.

44 [1943] 17 NLR 14.

45 [1973] 8 NSCC 691.

46 Ibid 695.

47 (1964) 1 All NLR 154.

48 See pre 1979 Nigerian Constitutions.

49 AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: reversing the law on admissibility of land instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 182.

50 ‘Evidence’ is the 23^rd item in the exclusive legislative list in Part I of the Second Schedule in the Nigerian Constitution.

51 See s 4(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which gives the National Assembly the power to exclusively make law on issues listed in the exclusive list in the Constitution. It is beyond peradventure that State governments are completely barred from making laws on matters listed in the exclusive list. Prince Abel A Emiko, ‘An Essential of Federalism: Distribution of Powers and Functions Between the Centre and the States’ (2000/2001) 6(2) Univ Benin Law J 123 at 124; Yusuf Aboki, ‘Constitutional Imperatives for the Fourth Republic’ in MM Gidado, CU Anyanwu, and AO Adekunle (eds), Constitutional Essays –Nigeria Beyond 1999: Stabilizing the Polity Through Constitutional Reengineering (Chenglo Ltd 2004) 164 at 173, AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: reversing the law on admissibility of unregistered land instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 177.

52 Prince Abel A Emiko, ‘An Essential of Federalism: Distribution of Powers and Functions Between the Central and the State’ (2000/2001) 6(2) Univ Benin Law J 123 at 124, AA Emiko, The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Law in Nigeria (Mufti Books 2001) 70, AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: Reversing the Law on Admissibility of Unregistered Land Instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 166.

53 AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: Reversing the Law on Admissibility of Unregistered Land Instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 182.

54 [1998] 4 NWLR (Pt 545) 311.

55 Ibid 320.

56 [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt 946) 671, 692.

57 [2011] 4 NWLR (Pt 1236) 103.

58 Ibid 128.

59 (2018) LPELR-44285.

60 Sections 2, 3 and 255 of the Evidence Act 2011.

61 See ss 1 and 2 of the Evidence Act 2011 and s 6 of the repealed Evidence Act 1945.

62 See ss 2, 3, 83 and 211 of the Evidence Act 2011which show that it is relevancy that determines admissibility of evidence; AO Ewere, ‘Benjamin v Kalio: Reversing the Law on Admissibility of Land Instruments in Nigeria’ (2019) 45(1) Commonw Law Bull 164 at 180.

63 [2018] 1 NWLR (Pt 1599) 32.

64 [2018] 1 NWLR (Pt 1599) 32, 54.

65 Ibid 54, 55.

66 Ibid 56.

67 (2018) 285 LRCN 215.

68 Section 37 defines ‘instrument’ as a document affecting land in Rivers State whereby one party confers, transfers, limits, charges or extinguishes in favour of another party or purporting to do so, any right or title to, or interest in land in Rivers State, and a certificate of purchase and a power of attorney under which any instrument may be executed, but not a will.

69 This provision is in pari materia with s 4(3) and (5) of the 1979 Constitution.

70 (2018) 285 LRCN 215, 237–239, 248.

71 Ibid 236–237.

72 Ibid 237–238. In John v The State [2017] 16 NWLR (Pt 1591) 304, 351–352, the Supreme Court also acknowledged that it is the provision of the Evidence Act that will prevail where there is conflict between any provision of the Act and a law made by State House of Assembly on whether a piece of evidence is admissible.

73 (2018) 285 LRCN 215, 248.

74 AA Emiko, The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Law in Nigeria (Mufti Books 2001) 70.

75 In Benjamin v Kalio (2018) 285 LRCN 215, 236, the Supreme Court acknowledged that ‘[t]he Evidence Act is an Act of the National Assembly or an Act deemed to have been enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to its legislative powers under the Constitution’.

76 Per Umoren, JCA in Avong v KRPC Ltd [2002] 14 NWLR (Pt 788) 508, 530–531.

77 See ss 83(1) and (2), 211(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.

78 Section 6 of the Evidence Act 1945 Cap E14 LFN 2010 provided thus: ‘Evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereafter declared to be relevant, and of no other, Provided that –

(a) the court may exclude evidence of facts which though relevant or deemed to be relevant to the issue, appears to it to be too remote to be material in all the circumstances of the case; and

(b) this section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force’.

79 Section 2 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides:

For the avoidance of doubt, all evidence given in accordance with section 1 shall, unless excluded in accordance with this or any other Act, or any other legislation validly in force in Nigeria, be admissible in judicial proceedings to which this Act applies: Provided that admissibility of such evidence shall be subject to all such conditions as may be specified in each case by or under this Act.

80 Section 3 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides: ‘Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence that is made admissible by any other legislation validly in force in Nigeria’.

81 See Nigeria Soft Drinks v AG Lagos State [1987] 2 NWLT (Pt 57) 444, 455; Amoshima v State [2011] 14 NWLR (Pt 1239) 130, where the courts held that only the National Assembly can legislate on matters listed in the exclusive legislative list of the Constitution.

82 AI Bappah, ‘A Critical Assessment of Some New Provisions of the Evidence Act 2011’ (2014) 6 & 7 J Private Compar Law 1, 21.

83 Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

84 Adedayo v PDP (2013) 221 LRCN (Pt 1) 69, 105. Stare decisis is the legal principle which mandates courts to follow their own decisions and decisions of higher courts.

85 344 US 443 (1953).

86 Ibid 541.

87 [1989] 3 NWLR (Pt 109) 250.

88 Ibid 274.

89 Dapianlong v Dariye (2007) 152 LRCN 155, 262–263.

90 Per Ogundare, JSC in Abu v Odugbo (2001) 89 LRCN 2632, 2670.

91 Bucknor-Maclean v Inlaks Limited (1980) 8–11 SC 1, 16.

92 (2007) 152 LRCN 155.

93 Ibid 262.

94 Conway v Rimmer (1968) 1 All ER 874, 892.

95 Adedayo v PDP (2013) 221 LRCN (Pt 1) 69, 105.

96 Per Mohammad, JSC in ADH Ltd. v AT Ltd (2008) 156 LRCN 94, 156–157.

97 Adedayo v PDP (2013) 221 LRCN (Pt. 1) 69, 105.

98 Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC (2003) 105 LRCN 280, 301, per Uwaifo, JSC in his lead judgment.

99 Odi v Osafile (1985) All NLR 20, 43.

100 Jones v Secretary of State (1972) 1 All ER 145; Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC (2003) 105 LRCN 280, 302; Adedayo v PDP (2013) 221 LRCN (Pt. 1) 69, 105.

101 Bucknor-Maclean v Inlaks Ltd (1980) 8–11 SC 1.

102 Odi v Osafile (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt 1) 17.

103 Adedayo v PDP (2013) 221 LRCN (Pt 1) 69, 142.

104 Ewete v Gyang (2003) 109 LRCN 1496, 1514; Adedayo v PDP (2013) 221 LRCN (Pt 1) 69, 142.

105 (2008) 156 LRCN 94.

106 Ibid at 156–157. Also see Igwe v Kalu (2002) 102 LRCN 2061, 2071–2072.

107 (2003) 109 LRCN 1496.

108 (1973) NNLR 138.

109 (1994) 7–8 SCNJ 1.

110 Ewete v Gyang (2003) 109 LRCN 1496, 1514.

111 Adedayo v PDP (2013) 221 LRCN (Pt 1) 69, 104.

112 (1980) 8–11 SC 1.

113 (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt 1) 17.

114 (1985) 2 SC 86.

115 (1974) 1 All NLR 542.

116 (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt 2) 107.

117 [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt 1) 17, 19.

118 [1985] 2 SC 86, 133.

119 The seven Justices that decided Benjamin v Kalio are: Ariwoola, Okoro, Sanusi, Augie, Eko, Galinje, and Bage, JJSC.

120 (1980) 8–11 SC 1.

121 [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt 1) 17, 19.

122 [1985] 2 SC 86, 133.

123 In Abdullahi v Adetutu, the Supreme Court panel was constituted by Rhode-Vivour, Kekere-Ekun, Nweze, Augie, and Galinje, JJSC. Augie and Galinje, JSC were also part of the seven-man panel that earlier decided Benjamin v Kalio in December 2017.

124 [1992] 7 NWLR (Pt 254) 412.

125 [2007] 1 NWLR (Pt 1015) 287.

126 [2007] 16 NWLR (Pt 1061) 554; (2008) 159 LRCN 120.

127 [2011] 4 NWLR (Pt 1236) 103.

128 Umoffia v Ndem (1973) 12 SC (Reprint) 58.

129 [2001] 2 NWLR (Pt 698) 465.

130 [2011] 11 NWLR (Pt 1258) 375.

131 [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt 758) 599.

132 (1964) 1 All NLR 154.

133 [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 537.

134 [1997] 7 NWLR (Pt 512) 283.

135 (1997) 12 168.

136 [1991] 4 NWLR (Pt 187) 569.

137 [1994] 4 NWLR (Pt 338) 326.

138 [2006] 16 NWLR (Pt 1005) 225.

139 [2010] 2 NWLR (Pt 1179) 419.

140 [1994] 1 NWLR (Pt 321) 375.

141 [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt 758) 599.

142 [1991] 4 NWLR (Pt 187) 569.

143 Ogunbambi v Abowab 13 WACA 222; Agwunedu v Onwumere [1994] 1 NWLR (Pt 321) 375; Fakoya v St Paul’s Church Shagamu (1966) 1 All NLR 74; Oni v Arimoro (1973) NMLR 237; Akingbade v Elemosho (1964) 1 All NLR 154.

144 Unini Chioma, ‘Nigerian Supreme Court departs from its recent decision on admissibility of unregistered registrable land instruments’ The Nigerian Lawyer, July 26, 2019.

145 Halima Abiola ‘In Abdullahi v Adetutu, Supreme Court departs from Benjamin v Kalio on admissibility of unregistered registrable instruments’, www.loyalnigerianlawyer.com, accessed on September 1, 2019.

146 The 2011 cases relied on by the apex court in Abdullahi were Gbinijie v Odji [2011] 4 NWLR (Pt 1236) 103 and Agboola v United Bank for Africa Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt 1258) 375.

147 Ememoh v Onokpite (1985) 2 SC 86, 133.

148 CBN v Okojie (2015) 250 LRCN 44, 89.

149 Benjamin v Kalio has not been upturned as at today.

150 Benjamin v Kalio (2018) All FWLR 1, 29–30.

151 Ibid 30.

152 (2007) 152 LRCN 155, 262.

153 Benjamin v Kalio was decided in December 2017, while the brief of Abdullahi v Adetutu was argued before the Supreme Court on 17 January 2019, before judgment was delivered in the case on 12 April 2019.

154 (1966) 3 All ER 77, per Lord Gardner LC and Bucknor Maclean v Inlaks Limited (1980) 8–11 SC 1, 16, per Idigbe, JSC.

155 Per Gavan Duffy, P in Re Moore [1947] Ir 205, 212; cited in Emeka Chianu, ‘Judicial Precedent – Recent Developments in Nigeria’ (1996/99) 3 Univ Benin Law J 104, 128.