IMPORTANT NOTICE

The next stage after the conclusion of preliminary step in transfer of title in land is the stage of title deducing. Title deducing is a situation whereby the vendor is expected to prove his title to the land he is offering to sell. The vendor will prove his title to the purchaser by delivering to him a sort of an abstract which contains a brief history as abstracted from the document or documents telling the prospective purchaser how the interest in the property to be sold has moved from one person to the other beginning with a root title up to the present vendor wishing to sell. It is an instrument of disposition proving on the face of it, without the aid of extrinsic evidence, the ownership of the whole legal and equitable estate in the property sold or under consideration. It contains a description by which the property can be identified and showing nothing to cast any doubt on the title of the vendor.

Abstract of title enables the prospective purchaser to form his opinion and conclusion on the title as to its genuineness and soundness. It also helps to detect encumbrances, if any, on the property, to raise requisitions and assist solicitors to conduct search and write report in respect of the position and status of the title. The title of a person seeking for declaration of title in court must be intact and well rooted.

In the case of E.A. DAVID V. DANIEL TAIWO SASEGBON & 2 OTHERS who are Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Philip Henryson Williams, deceased. This case brought to fore the decision of the Court towards failure of the David to conduct search in respect of land being the subject matter of this case, so as to be able to clearly define and connect the root of title in the land. In the case, One Philip Henryson Williams, deceased bought the land in dispute which consists of two adjoining pieces of land in two lots. One piece was covered by a certificate of purchase dated the 19th of February, 1945 and the other piece was covered by conveyance, from the United African Company Limited, dated 16th January, 1942. Other deeds on which his title was based are deed of conveyance dated 28th September, 1918 from one Ruka Ariyo and Samuel Adeyemi Thomson to one Sumaila Olarewaju Martins and deed of mortgage dated 1st September, 1939, from one Sumaila Olarewaju Martins to the United African Company Ltd.

The Court, in respect of the piece of land covered by a certificate of purchase dated the 19th of February, 1945, found that although, one Jacob Osho Bamgboye, the one from whom David derived his title stated in a document (root of title document) declaring his title that a relation of his, Amusa Alli was in possession of the land and that he too was in possession. The Judge in his view said that it sounds incredible that the said Jacob was in possession as declared in the document and yet did nothing when Daniel Taiwo Sasegbon and  others, agents fenced in the land, placed a sign board on it, placed a mechanic on it and cleared it from time to time. Consequently, the Court held that, the declaration of title of Jacob Osho Bamgboye and the conveyance relied upon by David failed hopelessly to connect his tile with one Rufus Alexander Wright’s conveyance dated 1892, from which the said David based his title. The Court went further that as a root of title, the declaration of title of Jacob Osho Bamgboye is worthless and of no value.

Consequently, it was held that Daniel Taiwo Sasegbon and others were entitled to remain in possession of the land in dispute by virtue of their documentary evidence of title against the whole word but the person with a better title. The reason is that, David’s root of title goes back only to Bamgboye’s declaration of title of July, 1947, which has already been described as worthless. The Court went further to hold that, “Ownership of land based on a worthless root of title cannot be sustained” and if the appellant i.e. E.A. David “had taken the trouble to investigate the title of Bamgboye at the Lands Registry Office, Lagos, he would have discovered the existence of the conveyances and deeds put in evidence by the respondents, and he has himself to blame for not doing so.”

W.A. AMINU, ESQ.  (08055113580)
W. AMINU AND COMPANY.