THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED LAND DOCUMENTS IN NIGERIA: THE CURRENT LEGAL STANDPOINT

Abstract

This article explores the intricate legal framework governing the admissibility of unregistered land documents in Nigeria, a subject that has generated significant debate in both judicial and academic circles. Through an in-depth analysis of landmark decisions including Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38, Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019) LPELR-47384(SC), and the more recent Enejo v. Sanusi & Anor (2025) LPELR-80240(SC), the article reveals how Nigerian courts have navigated the conflict between state land registration laws and the federal Evidence Act. It emphasizes the evolving judicial posture that increasingly favors equitable principles and constitutional supremacy over rigid procedures. The article further examines the implications of unregistered documents for proving legal title, equitable interest, and the enforcement of land transactions through remedies such as specific performance.

Keywords: Evidence Act, equitable interest, land registration, admissibility, specific performance

Introduction

The admissibility of unregistered land documents has long been a contentious and evolving issue in Nigerian jurisprudence. At the heart of the debate lies a tension between state legislations—particularly the Land Instrument Registration Laws of various states—and the federal Evidence Act, which governs evidentiary admissibility in court proceedings. The central question is this: Can a document affecting land, which has not been registered in accordance with applicable state laws, be admitted in evidence to prove title or other interests in land?

This issue has come to the fore in landmark decisions of the Supreme Court, most notably in Benjamin v. Kalio[1], Abdullahi v. Adetutu[2], and more recently Enejo v. Sanusi & Anor[3]. These cases, rendered by the apex court, articulate overlapping yet distinct views on admissibility and equitable interest. This article explores the current legal standpoint on this issue, offering clarity through a detailed examination of constitutional principles, judicial decisions, and legislative provisions, aimed at a general audience seeking an understanding of the admissibility of land documents within Nigeria’s complex federal legal system.

Background

In Nigeria, land ownership and transactions are typically documented through instruments such as deeds of conveyance, certificates of occupancy, and powers of attorney. Many of these instruments are classified as “registrable” under various state laws. For instance, Section 20 of the Land Instruments (Preparation and Registration) Law of Rivers State and Section 30 of the Lagos State Lands Registration Law require that such documents be registered to be pleaded or admitted in evidence.

Historically, courts have enforced these provisions strictly. The prevailing judicial position for decades was that an unregistered registrable instrument could not be admitted to prove legal title to land. This was seen in cases like Ojugbele v. Olasoji and Akintola v. Solano , where the Supreme Court held that such documents, though possibly evidencing transactions, were inadmissible to establish title if not registered.

However, the legal landscape changed significantly with the adoption of the 1979 Constitution and its successor, the 1999 Constitution. Under these constitutions, the legislative competence to make laws regarding evidence was exclusively vested in the National Assembly. Specifically, Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List in the Second Schedule places the subject of evidence squarely within federal control. Sections 4(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution affirm that state laws inconsistent with federal law are void to the extent of such inconsistency. This shift laid the foundation for landmark judicial pronouncements that challenged the longstanding orthodoxy.

Main Body

The Supreme Court’s decision in Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38 redefined the jurisprudential position on the admissibility of unregistered land documents. In that case, the issue was whether an unregistered deed of conveyance (Exhibit L) was admissible to establish the respondent’s title to land. The appellant had invoked Section 20 of the Rivers State Law to argue that the document was inadmissible since it was not registered. The court, however, rejected this argument.

Justice Eko JSC, delivering the lead judgment, held that admissibility is governed solely by the federal Evidence Act, not by state laws. He declared that Section 20 of the Rivers State Law, to the extent that it sought to override the provisions of the Evidence Act, constituted an unconstitutional intrusion into federal legislative territory. Citing Sections 4(3) and 4(5) of the Constitution, the court asserted that the Evidence Act, as a federal law, prevails over inconsistent state enactments. The court went on to affirm the admissibility of the document for the purpose of establishing both payment and the purchaser’s equitable interest in the land.

The principle established in Benjamin v. Kalio[4] is that a document otherwise admissible under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered inadmissible by a state law merely because it is unregistered[5]. This interpretation was praised by many for prioritizing constitutional supremacy and substantive justice over rigid technicalities[6].

However, this interpretation was somewhat curtailed in Abdullahi v. Adetutu[7], where the court reverted to a stricter position. It was held that an unregistered registrable document cannot be used to prove legal title. It can, however, be admitted as evidence of a transaction or for proving equitable interest[8]. The position of the law is that where two judgements of the Supreme Court are clearly contradictory, the later in time must be taken to have impliedly overruled the earlier case once the facts of the two cases are not totally different from one another, yet the decisions are inconsistent[9]. Howbeit, this decision, while not overruling Benjamin v. Kalio[10], created uncertainty about which decision represents the authoritative position.

A more nuanced clarification was provided in the Supreme Court’s decision in Enejo v. Sanusi & Anor[11], which reaffirms a foundational principle: the admissibility of an unregistered land document depends on the purpose for which it is being tendered. In that case, the appellant challenged the admissibility of an unregistered sale agreement (Exhibit P1), arguing that it was inadmissible under the Land Instruments Registration Law of Kaduna State. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court emphasized that Exhibit P1 was not tendered to prove legal title but to establish that a transaction had occurred and that money had exchanged hands between the parties. It held that the unregistered document was admissible to prove equitable interest in land, and affirmed that such interest is enforceable through the remedy of specific performance. According to the Court, “Exhibit P1 effectively and completely proved the equitable interest of the 1st Respondent in the property in dispute.”

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a statutory right of occupancy obtained in disregard of a subsisting equitable interest cannot extinguish such interest. The equitable interest of the 1st Respondent in Enejo v. Sanusi was protected despite the later issuance of a statutory right of occupancy to the appellant. The Court held that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is prima facie evidence of title, not conclusive. If another party had an existing and superior interest in the land, such a certificate can be rebutted and invalidated.

Discussion

These landmark cases collectively reveal a growing judicial tendency to protect equitable interests even when strict statutory compliance is absent. The emerging principles are clear:

1. An unregistered registrable document is inadmissible to prove legal title under state laws.
2. However, the same document is admissible under the Evidence Act to prove:
   • Existence of a transaction between parties
   • Part payment or purchase price
   • Equitable interest in land
3. Courts will admit such documents if tendered for a limited, non-title-based purpose, and where the party has pleaded the document accordingly.
4. The remedy of specific performance may be granted to enforce such equitable interests, especially where monetary compensation would be inadequate.

The significance of Enejo v. Sanusi lies in its detailed application of these principles. It clarifies that the purpose and context of tendering the document determine its admissibility. It also underscores the need for prospective purchasers to conduct diligent searches and beware of prior equitable interests, especially if the original owner had already transferred possession or documents.

These developments signify a broader constitutional and equitable approach to justice. Nigerian courts are increasingly willing to look beyond formal defects to enforce fairness and intent between parties, provided statutory rights are not unduly infringed.

Conclusion

There is no simple or absolute answer to the question of whether unregistered land documents are admissible in Nigeria. The current legal landscape is one of careful balancing—between respecting statutory frameworks and honoring constitutional supremacy, between ensuring procedural order and delivering substantive justice.

The trio of cases—Benjamin v. Kalio (2018), Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019), and Enejo v. Sanusi & Anor (2025)—demonstrate the evolving posture of the Supreme Court. While strict formalism still governs title-based admissibility, equity and constitutional reasoning now ensure that justice is not sacrificed on the altar of technicality.

Ultimately, litigants are strongly advised to register all registrable land instruments, not only to enhance admissibility but to avoid future disputes. However, where documents are unregistered, parties may still rely on equitable principles to protect their interests, particularly where possession has been transferred or money exchanged.

Reference(S)

• Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38.
• Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019) LPELR-47384(SC).
• Enejo v. Sanusi & Anor (2025) LPELR-80240(SC).
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss. 4(3), 4(5); Second Schedule, Item 23.
• Evidence Act, 2011.
• Land Instruments (Preparation and Registration) Law, Cap. 74, Laws of Rivers State (Nigeria).
• Lagos State Lands Registration Law, 2015, s. 30 (Nigeria).
• Akhihiero, P., “Judicial Approaches to the Admissibility of Evidence and the Emerging Principles” (2024).
• Durotolu, O., “Registerable Instrument on Admissibility of Unregistered Judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria” (2020).
• Adewale Sontan, Admissibility Of An Unregistered Land Instrument: Dissecting Case Law, Legalnaija (July 21, 2021), https://legalnaija.com/admissibility-of-an-unregistered-land-instrument-dissecting-case-law-adewale-sontan-ll-b-b-l/.
• Summary of Current Decision of The Supreme Court in Benjamin Vs. Kalio, Johpress (May 24, 2019, 12:31pm), https://johpress.blogspot.com/2019/05/summary-of-current-decision-of-supreme.html.
• Unini Chioma, Nigerian Supreme Court Departs from its Recent Decisions on Admissibility of Unregistered Registrable Land Instruments, thenigerialawyer, (July 26, 2019), https://thenigerialawyer.com/nigerian-supreme-court-departs-from-its-recent-decision-on-admissibility-of-unresgistered-registrable-land-instruments/.
• Halima Abiola, The Effect of a Registrable Land Instrument that is not Registered, loyalnigerianlawyer, (Feb. 15, 2022), https://loyalnigerianlawyer.com/the-effect-of-a-registrable-land-instrument-that-is-not-registered/.

[1] Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38.

[2] Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019) LPELR-47384(SC).

[3] Enejo v. Sanusi & Anor (2025) LPELR-80240(SC)

[4] Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38.

[5] Summary of Current Decision of The Supreme Court in Benjamin Vs. Kalio, Johpress (May 24, 2019, 12:31pm), https://johpress.blogspot.com/2019/05/summary-of-current-decision-of-supreme.html.

[6] Adewale Sontan, Admissibility Of An Unregistered Land Instrument: Dissecting Case Law, Legalnaija (July 21, 2021), https://legalnaija.com/admissibility-of-an-unregistered-land-instrument-dissecting-case-law-adewale-sontan-ll-b-b-l/.

[7] Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019) LPELR-47384(SC).

[8] Unini Chioma, Nigerian Supreme Court Departs from its Recent Decisions on Admissibility of Unregistered Registrable Land Instruments, thenigerialawyer, (July 26, 2019), https://thenigerialawyer.com/nigerian-supreme-court-departs-from-its-recent-decision-on-admissibility-of-unresgistered-registrable-land-instruments/.

[9] Halima Abiola, The Effect of a Registrable Land Instrument that is not Registered, loyalnigerianlawyer, (Feb. 15, 2022), https://loyalnigerianlawyer.com/the-effect-of-a-registrable-land-instrument-that-is-not-registered/.

[10] Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38.

[11] Enejo v. Sanusi & Anor (2025) LPELR-80240(SC)