Background
This suit arose from a familial dispute over the estate of the late Mrs. Mary Osahon Ugiagbe. The Claimant, Andrew Ugiagbe, and the Defendant, his sister Miss Ann Imariagbe Ugiagbe, contend over the ownership of a residential property known as No. 1, Ogba Road by Boundary Road Junction, Benin City. Following their mother’s passing, family members purportedly convened a meeting resulting in a sharing of her assets. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant, who retained title documents, refused to release them after the division. He obtained a resolution from the Oba’s Palace directing the Defendant to hand over the documents, but she declined.
The Defendant counters that during their mother’s lifetime, two properties—including the disputed house—in question were gifted inter vivos to her via a document (exhibit P). She denies participation in the post-funeral family sharing and maintains that her title derives solely from the gift instrument.
Issues
- Whether there was a valid customary arbitration that bound the parties.
- Whether exhibit P (the purported gift inter vivos) is admissible and sufficient to confer title.
- Whether exhibit C (the family sharing document) establishes the Claimant’s title by preponderance of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The decision turned on the principles that:
- Customary arbitration must involve voluntary submission and physical presence; a mere palace resolution letter does not satisfy this requirement (Alibo v Akusin (2010) FWLR pt. 526 at 1088–89).
- A registrable instrument purporting to transfer land title must be registered under the relevant Land Instruments Registration Law to confer legal title.
- Unregistered instruments are inadmissible in evidence and cannot establish title.
- A properly executed family sharing document can, by preponderance of evidence, establish entitlement to statutory right of occupancy where no competing registered title exists.
Court Findings
The court found that exhibit B, the palace letter, did not demonstrate the Defendant’s voluntary submission to customary arbitration. Accordingly, no binding customary arbitration arose. On the admissibility of exhibit P, the court held that as a registrable instrument, it should have been registered under Sections 2 and 16 of the Land Instrument Registration Law (Cap 81, Bendel State 1976). Unregistered, it was inadmissible and was expunged. With exhibit P excluded, the Defendant’s counterclaim collapsed.
The court then examined exhibit C, the family sharing resolution. Despite the Defendant’s absence from the meeting, the credible evidence of CW1, a legal practitioner who signed the document, supported its authenticity. The court credited this document and held that it proved, by preponderance of evidence, that the disputed property was allocated to the Claimant.
Conclusion
The court declared the Claimant, Andrew Ugiagbe, entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over No. 1, Ogba Road, by Boundary Road Junction, Benin City. The Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety. A perpetual injunction was granted restraining the Defendant and her agents from collecting rents, selling, or trespassing on the property. No order for rendering accounts was made.
Significance
This judgment underscores the necessity for registration of land instruments to confer title and clarifies the limited scope of palace resolutions in customary arbitration. It affirms that unregistered instruments are inadmissible and demonstrates that credible family-sharing documents can resolve inheritance disputes by preponderance of evidence. Practitioners are reminded to ensure compliance with registration statutes and to secure clear evidence of customary arbitration consent.