MOBIL OIL (NIG) LTD. V. JOHNSON

• Pages: 76-84

76



MOBIL OIL (NIG) LTD. V. JOHNSON

should have indicated to anyone who is familiar with the practice of the Land Reg-

istry that the instrument relating to the land shown in the deed had previously been

registered. This he argued should have been enough notice to the Respondent

had he or his Solicitor made a proper search. This sounds rather a startling prop-

osition; however it is unnecessary to deal with this point as it was never raised in

the court below and there was no evidence before that court about such inscrip-

tion as creating sufficient notice to a purchaser.

It seems to me appropriate here to reiterate what was said by this court in the

case

Omosanya v. Anifowoshe,

4, F,.S.C. 94 that the Land Registration Ordinance

(Cap.99) deals with registration of instruments, with non-admissibility of unregis-

tered instruments as evidence, with priorities of registered instruments and the like

but makes no provisions that registration of a deed is to be regarded as notice of

what the deed contains or conveys nor does it provide that registration shall cure

any defect in the deed.

This should not be taken to mean however that the Court will not take cognis-

ance of the doctrine of notice wherever it is applicable. I will put the position thus

- where an estate is affected by an equitable interest, a subsequent purchaser for

value will not be affected by that equitable interest provided he obtained the legal

estate, he gave value for the property and he had no notice of the equitable inter-

est at the time when he gave his consideration.

In the present appeal there was no evidence before the learned trial Judge that

Ade Akodu when he bought the land in dispute and had the legal estate conveyed

to him in 1952, had notice of any equitable interest in the property. The Respond-

ent, a second purchaser of the legal estate cannot in any way be affected by any

notice which the previous purchaser had no notice of.

It is clear that this appeal cannot succeed on any of the grounds; I would there-

fore dismiss it with costs assessed at 30 guineas.

Brett, F.J. I

concur.

Unsworth, F.J. I

concur.

Appeal dismissed.

MOBIL OIL (NIG) LTD. V. JOHNSON

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MOBIL OIL (NIGERIA) LIMITED



APPELLANTS

V

J. M. JOHNSON



RESPONDENT



40

SUIT NO. FSC 75/1960

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



F.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

22nd March, 1961.

45

Commercial Law - Contract - Petrol Service Station operation agreement - "Dealer

Basis" Intention of parties - Landlord and Tenant - Lease or License -

Nature of possession under agreenzent - Matter of intention - Notice of

determination of relationship - Sufficiency and effect.

50