Background
The claimants1 Mr. Aghariaha Aideyan, Mr. Erhumwunse Aideyan, Miss Ibie Aideyan and Mrs. Ehiosu Emumwen1 sued their brother and sister-in-law (first and second defendants) over the title to No. 60 Sokponba Road, Benin City. The suit (No. B/205/13) commenced by originating summons on 2013-04-16, converted to a writ and statement of claim on 2013-04-30 after the defendants preliminary objection succeeded. The claimants alleged that their father, Pa. Samuel Aideyan, on 2010-08-02 executed a Deed of Transfer (Exhibit B), conveying co-ownership of his residence for a nominal ₦1.00 consideration each, reserving a life tenancy for himself and forbidding any burial on the premises. They contended that the burial by the defendants on 2013-04-26 did not confer any property rights. Their reliefs included declarations of co-ownership and exclusivity of interest, a mandatory order to restore the premises, and a perpetual injunction against interference. The defendants counter-claimed under Benin customary law (Igiogbe principle), disputing the validity of Exhibit B and asserting that the principal family dwelling vests by inheritance in the eldest surviving son. Evidence included witness statements from C.W.1 and C.W.2 regarding the deeds execution and payment, and defence evidence from D.W.1 (the family Okaegbe) and the second defendant challenging the deeds authenticity and alleging customary prohibitions. Written addresses addressed issues of admissibility, customary inheritance, and statutory interpretation.
Issues
- Is Exhibit B, an unregistered land instrument, admissible to prove equitable interest and payment of consideration?
- Does Benin customary law bar a living owner from transferring his principal dwelling (Igiogbe) by deed or gift?
- Does Section 3(1) of the Bendel State Wills Law extend to non-testamentary inter vivos transfers?
- Have the claimants proven their co-ownership and exclusive interest on the balance of probabilities?
- Have the defendants established their counter-claims on customary inheritance or malice, and do they have locus standi?
Ratio Decidendi
- An unregistered registrable instrument may be admitted to prove equitable interests and payment of money when pleaded for that purpose under the Land Instruments Registration Law.
- Benin custom does not prohibit inter vivos disposition of property; the Igiogbe concept attaches only upon death.
- Section 3(1) of the Wills Law limits testamentary dispositions but does not govern voluntary inter vivos deeds; customary constraints on wills do not invalidate lifetime transfers.
- Exhibit B was validly executed and witnessed, with the transferors thumb impression legitimately obtained, and consideration paid.
- The defendants failed to prove any customary or statutory bar, lacked evidence of forgery, and did not discharge their counter-claim burden.
Court Findings
- Exhibit B was properly tendered to evidence the transaction and payment; its unregistered status did not bar admissibility for that limited purpose.
- No credible proof of a Benin custom forbidding inter vivos transfers, nor that the dwelling attained Igiogbe status pre-mortem.
- Claimant witnesses and the deed were credible; defence witnesses were inconsistent or lacked proof.
- Burial by the defendants did not create property rights.
- The defendants counter-claims, including alleged malice and locus issues, were unsubstantiated.
Conclusion
The Court granted the claimants all declaratory, mandatory, and injunctive reliefs sought, dismissed the counter-claims of both defendants, and awarded costs of ₦30,000 in favour of the claimants.
Significance
This decision clarifies the interaction between statutory land instrument registration and customary inheritance rules, affirms a living owners autonomy to transfer property including the principal family dwelling, distinguishes between testamentary and inter vivos dispositions under the Wills Law, and confirms that unregistered deeds remain admissible to establish equitable interests and payment of consideration.