Land Instruments

• Pages: 1317-1322

1317

LAND INSTRUMENTS.

DEED OF ASSIGNMENT.

Who can seek cancellation of deed of assignment? “Indeed, it is elementary that only the

parties to a deed of assignment can go to court for a cancellation of the deed. The grantor's

rights under the lease are not derived from a deed of assignment of which he is not a party, but

from the head lease. Thus, it is not competent for the Governor to cancel the deed of assignment

as was attempted in the instant case. Only the Courts have competence in law to do so and this,

after hearing the parties to the deed of assignment.” – Per Onu, J.S.C., in Nangibo v. Okafor

Suit No. S.C. 139/1999; (2003) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 839) 78 at 105.

DEED OF CONVEYANCE.

When Cancellation of deed of conveyance is a proper relief in a land dispute.“In the case

of Rufus Adekunle Wright Cited supra,the West African Court of Appeal put it more succinctly

when it was observed thus: “The appropriate relief in the case of a third party in relation to the

execution of a deed of conveyance by which one party purports to convey the plaintiff’s land

to a second party, is not by way of the equitable relief of conciliation of the deed but by a

declaration of title or where ther e has been trespass an action for damages. It is only in an action

in which can properly be pleaded mistake, misrepresentation or fraud, actual or constructive

that cancellation will be the appropriate and effective remedy.” – Per Aderemi, J.C.A., in

Shobajo v. Ikotun Suit No. CA/L/286/97; (2003) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 840) 237 at 258.

DOCUMENT OF TITLE.

Enquiries Court should make where a party relies on a document in proof of title to land.

“This poser had come for consideration and resolution by the apex court in the case

of Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 238) 650perNnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C., thus:

“But it does not mean that once claimant produces what he claims to be an instrument of grant

he is automatically entitled to a declaration that the property which such an instrument purports

to grant is his own. Rather production and reliance upon such an instrument inevitably carried

with it theneed for the court to enquire in to some or all of a number of questions,including:

(italics is mine) i. Whether the document is genuine and valid.ii. Whether the grantee had the

capacity and authority to make the grant. iii. Whether it has been duly executed, stamped and

iv. Whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant and v. Whether it had the effect

claimed by the holders of the instrument” PerAnthony I. Iguh, J.S.C., inKyariv.Alkali(2001)

11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 724) 412, (2001) 6 N.S.C.Q.R. Vol. 11 819 at 846.” – Per Okunola, J.C.A.,

in Atanda v. Ifelagba Suit No. CA/IL/3/2002; (2003) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 849) 274 at 285.

Presumption of production of document of title to land. “Production of document of

title presupposes a document which is duly authenticated; in my considered opinion.” – Per

Fabiyi, J.C.A., in Lawson v. Manuel Suit No. CA/PH/107/95; (2006) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 989)

569 at 582.

Presumption of due execution of a document. “Once a document is registered in accordance

with the provision of section 17(1) – of the Lands Instrument Registration Law, Cap. 158, Laws