JAMES V. LANLEHIN

• Pages: 1071-1086

1071



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1985] 2 N.S.C.C.

JAMES V. LANLEHIN

5

KOLA JAMES



APPELLANT

V

CHIEF S. OWOOLA LANLEHIN



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 204/1984

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BELLO,



J.S.C.

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.



15

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

5th July, 1985

Evidence - Admissibility - Plan attached to registrable instrument - Absence of



20

Surveyor's signature and Surveyor-General's counter- signature contrary to

requirements of s.23 of the Survey Act - Effect.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether there is a distinction between former crown/state grants and other lands



25

for the purposes of the mandatory provisions of section 9(2), Lands Instrument

Registration Law, requiring "instruments' to be registered with a plan of the land

affected.

2.

Whether a registered instrument which is relevant and admissible in evidence

in a case can be excluded or become inadmissible merely because a plan or



30

map annexed thereto, was not signed by a surveyor and countersigned by the

Director of Surveys.

3.

When will section 3 of the Survey Law, WIN which is on all fours with section

23(1) of the Survey Act apply to make inadmissible in evidence, a plan, map

or diagram sought to be tendered.



35

4.

Where the registrar of lands accepts and registers an instrument to which is

annexed to a plan, or other description of the to be registered, is the adequacy

ye/

non

of such a description open to question or objection barring a court

order.

5.

Whether a "plan" simpliciter comes within the definintion of 'instruments" under



40

the Land's Instrument Registration Law, so as to come within the ambit of section

15, of the same Law, dealing with admissibility of instruments.

FACTS:

At the trial of the action, leading to this appeal, the plaintiff/respondent sought

to tender in evidence a deed of conveyance which was registered. This deed of



45

conveyance had attached to it a plan which bore no date and neither did it bear

the signature of any Surveyor nor the counter-signature of the Director of Surveys

as required by section 23 of the Survey Act, Cap. 194. Counsel for the defend-

ants raised the objection that the conveyance and the plan attached were inad-

missible in evidence on account of the defect in the plan which was unsigned



50

contrary to S.3 of the Survey Law

(impari materia

with s.23 of cap.194). The trial

Judge admitted the conveyance but rejected the plan as inadmissible. The plain-

tiff appealed to the Court of Apeal which reversed the ruling of the trial Judge and

held the plan admissible. On appeal to the Supreme Court.

JAMES V. LANLEHIN



1072

HELD:

1.

That there is a distinction in the requirement of the section, between lands which

are state or former crown grants executed before June 1, 1918 and other lands,

with respect to the filing of plans. Whereas the signature of the surveyor and

5



counter-signature of the Director of Surveys is essential in state lands or former

crown grants under section 9(2), this requirement is omitted in section 9(1)

applicable

in

other cases. Also, by the regulations made under sections 32

and 34 of the Lands Instruments Registration Law, regulation 2(b) excludes from

the provisions of section 9 (requiring instruments to be registered with a plan

10



of the land affected).: "Instruments affecting land the boundaries of which are

defined in a plan attached to an instrument presented for registration." It follows

from the provisions of section 9 and the regulations referred to, that with respect

to acceptance for, registration, the mandatory requirement of the signature of

the surveyor and counter-signature of the Director of Surveys on a plan attached

15



to an instrument sought to be registered and executed after the 1st of June,

1918, applies only to state lands or former crown grants. The plots in the instant

appeal are neither state grants nor former crown grants and are consequently

not affected. The section does not apply to a plan attached to an instrument in

respect of any other land executed after June 1, 1918. Section 9 of the Land

20



Instruments Registration Law, and section 3(1)(a) of the Survey Law both of

which deal with registration of instruments support that construction. Section

15 renders inadmissible in evidence, instruments which are not registered.

2.

That the admissibility of Exh.B which is the subject of the objection leading to

this appeal falls under sections 9 and 15 of the Lands Instruments Registration

25



Law, and section 3(1)(a) of the Survey Law. Since section 3(1)(a) is not

concerned with admissibility in evidence in court, but registration of registrable

instruments, it is clear that once the instrument is registered under section 9(1)

of Cap.64, the provision of s.3(1)(a) has been satisfied. It has been held in

Erinoso's case

that where a plan admitted with a registered instrument is in

30



evidence and is under consideration for any purpose, if defective, the weight

to be attached to it will be determined by provisions of section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the

Survey Law. The instant appeal is governed by section 3(1)(a) of the Survey

Law, Cap.132 Laws of Lagos State and sections 9 and 15 of the Lands

Instruments Registration Law Cap. 64. Therefore, the conveyance registered

35



in 1920 at Lands Registry Lagos, and pleaded and filed by the respondent is

admissible in evidence, together with the plan attached to it. The question of

the admissibility of the plan did not fall for consideration here.

3.

That the provisions of section 3 of the Survey Law of WIN are to the same effect

as section 23(1) of the Survey Act which formed the basis of the appellant's

40



case. That section will only apply in respect of a plan which is tendered in

evidence per

se

and not to a plan which is tendered as part of a registered

Deed.

4.

That although by section 9(3) of Cap.64, no instrument executed after 1st June,

1918, having thereon, or attached thereto a plan of the land affected shall be

45



registered unless the plan is signed by a surveyor, or is a copy of a plan which

has been signed by a surveyor and countersigned by the Director of Surveys;

the earlier provision of section 9(1) of the same law provides that "the decision

of the registrar as to the adequacy of the description and plan of any land or

any instrument for the purpose of identification shall be final, subject to any

50



order of the High Court. This case is concerned with an instrument to which is

attached a plan or map or diagram of land, the adequacy of which was accepted

by the Registrar before registration. His decision is clearly final. Section 23

of the Survey Act was therefore inapplicable and the trial Judge was in error to