J. D. Owumi V. Paterson Zochonis & Co (Nig.) Ltd. (1974)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ELIAS, CJN.

In Suit No. LD/659/70 delivered by Lambo, J., in the High Court of Lagos State on May 24, 1971, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants were for:-

(i) a declaration that the deed dated 24th September, 1969 and made between Chief Joseph Modupe Johnson of the one part and the defendants of the other part confers no estate on the defendants in or over the land registered under Title No. L0 5243;

(ii) an order that the Register kept at the Lands Registry pursuant to the Registration of Titles Act be rectified by deleting therefrom any entry made to give effect to any estate purported to be vested in the defendants by virtue of the deed aforesaid.

In his Statement of Claim, the plaintiff averred as follows:

“1. The plaintiff is the registered owner of a leasehold estate in the land described in the claim on the writ of summons and registered under Title No. LO 5243 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said land’).

2. The former registered owner of the said land was Chief J.M. Johnson, who duly transferred his estate therein to the plaintiff.
3. The defendants are a limited liability company and were let into possession by Chief J.M. Johnson aforesaid.
4. By a deed dated 24th September, 1969, the said Chief J. M. Johnson purported to grant the defendants a leasehold estate in the land aforesaid for a term of 3 years.
5. The defendants claim the right to remain in possession under and by virtue of the deed of lease aforesaid.
6. The plaintiff avers that the said lease is void and of no effect in law because it was not made in the manner prescribed by the Registration of Titles Act.

Whereupon the plaintiff claims as per the writ of summons.”

The Statement of Defence admitted all the plaintiff’s averments except that in paragraph 6 and further averred as follows:

“4. The defendants aver that the said sub-lease was properly and validly made in strict conformity with the provisions of the Registration of Titles Act, Cap. 181.

5. The defendants will contend at the hearing of this action that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, misconceived and an abuse of the process of the court and should be dismissed.

Whereupon the defendants say that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim as per his writ of summons.”

It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that, since the defendants admitted paragraphs 1-5 of the Statement of Claim, the only question for determination was whether the deed of sub-lease was valid or void. As the parcel of land in question was registered (see Ex. A) under the Registration of Titles Act, Cap. 181, it could only be dealt with in a manner prescribed by the Act, the whole object being to simplify conveyancing by following the prescribed form in accordance with Section 14 (1) of the Registration of Titles Act and the First Schedule, Form 4 thereto. Section 14 (1) and (2) reads as follows:

“(1) The registered owner of land may in the prescribed manner lease the land to the same extent as if the land has not been registered.

(2) The lease shall be completed by registration of the lease as an incumbrance, and of the lessee as owner of the lease, and by filing the original lease or a copy thereof in the registry.”

It was submitted on plaintiff’s behalf that the deed is in the general form and does not contain an application for registration as in Form 4 (Section 16 of the Act). It was further pointed out that Section 42 (1) of the Registration of Titles Act gives free power of disposition whether the land is or is not registered under the Act, and that Section 42 (2) provides that if a dealing can be done in a prescribed manner it must be done in that manner alone; the effect of the latter subsection is to nullify any dealing with registered land other than in the prescribed manner. See Jaffar v. Ladipo (1969) 1 All NLR 165 and Adegbesan v. Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. LD/262/65 in which a mortgage transaction was held void for not having been executed in the prescribed manner for ordinary dealing with the land concerned. It was submitted that the deed in the present case was void and that the registration should be declared cancelled since the sub-lessee did not apply to be registered in the prescribed manner.