ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT TO PROVE OWNERSHIP IN LAND: BENJAMIN V KALIO (2018) 15 NWLR (PT 1641) 38 AND ABDULLAHI V ADETUTU (2020) NWLR (PT1711) 338 (SC), AS CASE STUDY

Abstract

Proof of ownership in land constitutes an important aspect of property law practice in Nigeria. Amongst the various ways of proving interest or title to land is the presentation of instruments of title. Admissibility of title document and indeed other pieces of evidence is regulated by law. This article appraised the admissibility of unregistered registrable instrument in proof of interest in land, be it interest or ownership in land vis-à-vis the decisions of the Supreme Court in Banjamin v Kalio and Abdullahi v Adetutu. It was observed that the court in Abdullahi’s case did not take a holistic approach in reaching its decision that an unregistered registrable instrument is not admissible to prove interest in land, but only admissible to evidence transaction of both parties, as well as evidence purchase receipt. The Supreme Court in Benjamin’s case meticulously observed the Rivers State Land Instruments (Preparation and Registration) Law, which is similar to land instruments law of various States in Nigeria, its previous decisions on the subject matter, the Evidence Act 2011 and the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) in reaching her decision. In analyzing both decisions, the writers opined that irrespective of the contrary decision of the Supreme Court on admissibility of unregistered registrable instrument with Abdullahi v Adetutu being the later in time, Benjamin v Kalio represent the correct position of the law. In concluding this article, the writers expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will have no difficulty in affirming Benjamin v Kalio as the correct position of the law where it is faced with both decisions for consideration.