Not quite. It depends on what kind of information he withholds or hides. An example will be ideal at this point: A prospective land buyer is taken and shown a bush land for sale and he sees the place and decides that he likes the land and its location, and excitedly goes ahead to pay the negotiated purchase price and collects his payment receipt without going into the land. If afterwards he sends in a Surveyor to survey the land, or he goes in to clear the bush and then discovers that the land he bought has a very deep and wide erosion gully dividing the land into two, a gully which he would need more than the purchase price money to fill up and erect gutters in the proper place before he can make any meaningful development therein. He will not be able, in law, to decide that he will no longer buy the land, and that money he paid must be refunded. See a case of Bell V. Lever Bros. Ltd (1932) A.C. 161, 227with another set of background facts
A buyer who goes ahead to pay and conclude the contract of land purchase relying on the size of the area of the land as told him by the vendor, casting away and ignoring a good opportunity of getting his own surveyor to check that out and draw up a survey in his own name as the new owner of the property, but later discovers that the parcel of land is very much less than claimed by the vendor, has only himself to blame. That was the situation in the foreign cases of Dutton V. Bognor Regis U.D.C. (1972) All ER. 462, and Higgins V. Arfon Borough Council (1975) 2 All ER. 588.But that would be different where the situation was such that the buyer never had an opportunity to check out the information supplied him by the vendor as happened in the case of Shodipo V. Coker 11 NLR 138 where the purchase was by an auction sale. The wisdom in this matters always remains caveat emptor!!
Of course, there are those actions of the vendor that would be outright fraud which would expose the cheating or defrauding vendor to criminal prosecution. See Section 423 of the Criminal Code and Section 320 of the Penal Code for his criminal exposure. Also such scenario could be resolved in favour of the cheated or deceived buyer by the application of the rule of Nemo dat quod non habet – a person cannot give what he does not have. See Mohammed V. Klargester Nig. Ltd. (2002) FWLR (Pt. 127) 1078 @ 1095; Polo V. Ojor (2003) FWLR (Pt. 137) 1085 @ 1096. In Sule V. Aromire 20 NLR 20 where the vendor in an auction sale deceived the purchaser with a Court Judgment not related to the land in question, the court easily held that the buyer was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation, nullified the contract and ordered refund of purchase price money paid