Background
Mr. John U. Enejo (appellant) purchased a property at Pallandan, along Old Kano Road, Zaria, from Alhaji Nasir A. Sanusi (2nd respondent/original owner) for ₦150,000.00. A part payment of ₦95,000.00 was made and a written sale agreement (Exhibit P1) was executed. The original Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit P2) was handed over to the appellant, who was then introduced to the sitting tenants, Mr. Enejo and his wife, as the new landlord. The balance of ₦55,000.00 was to be paid upon vacant possession, but the 2nd respondent failed to evict the tenants.
The 1st respondent initiated suit in the Kaduna State High Court seeking (a) a declaration that the contract remained subsisting, (b) specific performance, (c) ejection of the tenants, and (d) damages. The trial court granted the reliefs (except general damages). The appellant joined as an interested party and succeeded in having the suit retried. On retrial, the High Court again granted specific performance, ejection and declaration. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision on 2006-12-14. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the unregistered sale agreement (Exhibit P1) was inadmissible and should not have been used to establish an enforceable contract.
- Whether, given the inchoate nature of Exhibit P1, absence of statutory consent, and the appellant’s own statutory title, specific performance could rightly be ordered.
- Whether the appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit D5) extinguished the equitable interest of the 1st respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court unanimously held that:
- An unregistered registrable instrument is admissible if tendered not as a vehicle for title but to prove payment and the existence of a contract, thereby supporting an equitable interest (Land Instruments Registration Law; Evidence Act).
- Specific performance is an equitable, discretionary remedy which, where land is unique and damages inadequate, must be granted to enforce a valid, subsisting contract freely entered into.
- A later Certificate of Occupancy does not extinguish a prior equitable interest evidenced by an earlier sale agreement and delivered certificate, especially where the later grant was obtained during litigation.
Court Findings
The Court found that:
- Exhibit P1 was properly pleaded and admitted solely to establish the transaction and part payment, not as a title instrument.
- The appellant had both actual notice of the equitable interest (he was introduced to the tenants after the agreement) and constructive notice (he accepted a photocopy of the original certificate without verifying its status).
- Exhibit D5 (appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy) was obtained after Exhibit P2 and during the pendency of the suit, rendering it void as it offended section 91(3) of the Evidence Act and did not extinguish the 1st respondent’s interest.
- The trial court correctly concluded that the 1st respondent acquired an equitable interest which could be converted to legal title by specific performance.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of merit. It affirmed the High Court and Court of Appeal orders granting specific performance, ejection of the appellant, and declaration of a valid subsisting contract. Costs of ₦2,000,000.00 were awarded against the appellant in favour of each respondent.
Significance
This decision clarifies the admissibility of unregistered registrable instruments in land disputes, delineates the circumstances under which specific performance should be granted, and confirms that a subsequent statutory title cannot extinguish a prior equitable interest acquired through an enforceable contract. It reinforces the duty of courts to uphold contracts freely entered into by parties, particularly in land transactions where uniqueness of property renders damages inadequate.