AYODELE ILORI & ORS V. ALHAJA RISIKAT ISHOLA (NEE RAJI) & ANOR (2018)

Background

The appellants, children of the late Festus Olanipekun Ilori, challenged the purported assignment of their deceased father's property at 12/14 Oludegun Street, Isolo, Lagos, to Alhaji Sule Raji. The property comprised four buildings containing fourteen flats and a vacant portion used as a car park. The appellants claimed that the property formed part of their father's estate and that the deed of assignment dated 17 September 1982 was invalid because their father had not signed it and the Governor's consent had not been validly obtained.

Raji maintained that Ilori had sold and assigned the property to him for N165,000.00, had acknowledged receipt of the consideration in the deed, and had handed over the certificate of occupancy. The deed was later stamped and registered, and an application for the Governor's consent was processed after the property had been deposited with a bank as security for a facility. The High Court granted the appellants' declaratory and injunctive reliefs. The Court of Appeal allowed Raji's appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal properly disturbed the High Court's findings concerning the alleged sale and assignment of the property.
2. Whether the appellants proved that the signature on the deed of assignment was not that of their father and that the deed was forged or not duly executed.
3. Whether attestation was necessary for the validity of the deed of assignment.
4. Whether the transaction was void under sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act because the Governor's consent was not obtained before the transaction.
5. Whether the appellants established an entitlement to the declaratory reliefs claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

A claimant seeking declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his own case and must prove the asserted right or interest to the satisfaction of the court, irrespective of any weakness in the defence or admissions in the pleadings. Where the claimant directly imputes forgery or another crime to a party in a civil proceeding, the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

A deed of assignment does not require attestation for validity. It is binding on its maker when signed, sealed and delivered, and delivery in this context means conduct evincing an intention to be bound rather than mere physical handover to the other party. A certified true copy of a registered document attracts a rebuttable presumption of regularity under section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, although registration does not itself cure a proven defect.

Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act does not prohibit parties from negotiating and executing an agreement subject to the Governor's consent. An agreement made subject to that consent does not contravene the section merely because it was executed before the consent was obtained. The deposit of the documents with a bank as security created an equitable mortgage. A party who benefited from the transaction could not rely on the failure to obtain or alleged irregularity in obtaining the consent as a basis for escaping liability.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had wrongly placed the burden on the respondent to prove the genuineness of the signature on the deed. The appellants disputed their father's signature and thereby made an imputation of forgery which they were required to establish beyond reasonable doubt. Their witnesses did not provide sufficient evidence, and they failed to discredit the evidence of the solicitor who prepared the deed and testified that Ilori signed it in his presence.

The Court accepted that the deed was valid without attestation and that Ilori's signature and delivery of the certificate of occupancy evidenced an intention to be bound. The appellants failed to prove the alleged defect in the deed, so the rebuttable presumption of regularity arising from its registration remained applicable.

The Court further found that the evidence of the appellants' own witness established that the prerequisites for the Governor's consent had been fulfilled and that the Lands Registry had been informed of Ilori's death. The agreement was subject to the Governor's consent, and the subsequent processing of consent did not render it void under sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act. The appellants therefore failed to establish any basis for the declaratory reliefs.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had set aside the High Court's judgment. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

Significance

The decision reinforces the strict evidential burden applicable to declaratory claims, particularly where forgery is alleged. It also confirms that attestation is not an essential requirement for a valid deed of assignment, that registration carries a rebuttable presumption of regularity, and that a transaction expressly made subject to the Governor's consent is not automatically void merely because the consent follows execution.