registration of land instrument

It is not every document that deals with land transactions qualify as Registrable Instruments. Registrable Instruments are those land transaction documents that actually have such legal effect of transferring the ownership title or interest in the land to another person. See Niger Construction Ltd. V. Ogbimi (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 744) 83; Ikonne V. Nwachukwu (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 172) 214. It would not matter what name the document is called – Deed of Conveyance, Power of Attorney, Contract of Sale of land, Memorandum of Understanding; once by its wordings ownership interest or title over the land is conveyed, alienated, transferred or assigned to another, same would require to be registered under the Registration of Title Law.

No, it does not, notwithstanding that the Registrar is enjoined by the law to make some preliminary inquiry as to the authenticity of the instrument, and not to register any instrument that is subject to litigation and contentions. It must be clearly stated that what is registered under this law is the Instrument of Title, not the title itself. See Onagoruwa V. Akinremi (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 38.

Under Section 6(1) of the law, and subject to other provisions of same law, any person who by that document (instrument) has the power to sell, or at law or in equity is entitled to the fee simple in that piece of land, and person entitled at law or in equity to a lease over any piece or parcel of land for a term of 5 years and more, may apply to be registered as the holder of the instrument of title or interest over that piece or parcel of land. See Majekodunmi V. Abina (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt. 755) 720 @ 750; Jolasun V. Bamgboye (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 285.

The Registrar is not bound to register every applicant as the law, under Section 9(1), requires him to investigate the claim of ownership or holding of interest, and where his findings is not satisfactory to him, to reject the application, otherwise he will register the applicant. See Jolasun V. Bamgboye (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 285.

Under Section 9(1) the Registrar is entitled to act and consider legal evidence such as would ordinarily affect issue of conveyances. Under Section 10(1) of the law, somebody aware of the application may file an opposition to the registration on the ground that the land is a family land under customary law, upon which the Registrar shall, except where it is proved that the objection is not true, or the family comes up to give their consent to the registration, dismiss the application. On this, see also Jolasun V. Bamgboye (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 285.

Not at all. The Registrars job is administrative. He registers the instrument of title where he in his investigations or consideration of raised objections he sees no need to refuse the application. Whenever there are objections or issues for which he would act to reject or resist registration, the applicant and/or the objector(s), would take the matter to court to get a court verdict on the matter upon which the Registrar would acts accordingly. See Jolasun V. Bamgboye (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 285.

It serves the purpose of providing an avenue for preliminary Search and Enquiry for people who deal in land to have a prima facie evidence that the person in whose name the land instrument is registered is the holder/owner of the title. As first registration and subsequent registrations and updating/changes in registration particulars are carried out, it easily reveals roots of titles that helps dealers in land get to know some facts about the land they intend to deal in. It fixes subsequent dealers in the same land with NOTICE of the existing interest and presents them with a Caveat. See Akingbade V. Elemesho (1964) NSCC (Vol. 3) 96; PAULKER V. IROKWE (2018) HELAR ratio 11

It helps to sort out matters of priority of entitlement as it is settled law that priority as regards registrable instruments is determined by date of registration of the instrument under this law, and not by the date the instrument was drawn or made. In Amankra V. Zankley (1963) 1 All NLR 304 where the same Vendor conveyed title to the disputed land to both parties, the Defdant who had the land conveyed to him by a registrable instrument on 16/5/57 but registered the instrument on 17/03/1960 lost out to the Plaintiff who got the land conveyed to him on 29/08/1957 and had it registered on 16/09/1957. The ordinary sound legal argument that since the Vendor divested himself of the title to the land in favour of the Defendant in May of 1957 he had nothing again to convey to the Plaintiff in AUGUST of 1957 (based on principle of nemo dat quod non habet) does not hold legal waters in this instance. The rationale could be said to be that by failing or refusing or neglecting to have the instrument registered earlier, as the Defendant had all the opportunity to have done, he had waived his right of priority, as his failure to so register the instrument might have acted to deceive the Plaintiff, who after conducting a search of the Register of Lands and did not find it in any other person’s name was led to believe that the land was free, unencumbered and still owned by the vendor. This principle of priority of interests according to the date of registration under the Land Instrument Registration Laws has been well affirmed by the Supreme Court in a long list of cases, including the ones of Olumide V. Ajayi (1997) 8 NWKLR (Pt. 517) 433 and Tewogbade V. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 338) 326.

A registrable instrument which has not been registered is admissible in proof of equitable interest and proof of payment of purchase money, or rent. It is able to establish that that transaction did, indeed, take place. Alafia & Ors. V. Gbode Ventures (Nig) Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) 116. But it is liable to be defeated by a legal interest of a bona fide Purchaser for value. See Edokpolo & Co. Ltd. V. Ohenhen (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 358) 511. A legal title or interest is conveyed where a transaction in the land has been perfected in every legal requirements such as proper preparation and execution of Deed of Conveyance, Payment of Stamp Duty, registration of the Deed (instrument), grant of Governor’s Consent, etc. etc; PAULKER V. IROKWE (2018) HELAR ratio 6, 10