THE ADMISIBILITY OF AN UNREGISTERED TITLE DOCUMENT AS PROOF OF TITLE IN LAND TRANSACTIONS IN NIGERIA: A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN OKOYE V. DUMEZ , BENJAMIN V. KALIO , ABDULLAHI V. ADETUTU AND TAAN V. SCOA NIG. PLC.

The admissibility of unregistered registrable instruments in property-related transactions has remained a contentious issue in Nigeria property law. While statutes governing registrations generally require instruments affecting land to be registered before they may be relied upon as evidence of title in Nigeria, Judicial interpretations of these provisions by the Apex Court have not always been consistent. Thus, this article examines the legal status of unregistered title documents through a critical analysis of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Okoye v. Dumez (Nig.) Ltd, Benjamin v. Kalio, Abdullahi v. Adetutu, and TAAN v. SCOA Nigeria PLC (Supra). It explores the confusion between the constitutional argument advanced in Benjamin v. Kalio and the traditional position reaffirmed in Abdullahi v. Adetutu and TAAN v. SCOA. This article argues that the current state of the law, going by the decisions of the Apex Court preserves the distinction between the use of an unregistered instrument as proof of legal title and its admissibility for equitable purposes such as establishing possession, payment of consideration, or other equitable interests. It concludes that, notwithstanding the validity of a transaction between parties, registration remains indispensable where an instrument is intended to serve as evidence to legal title to land in Nigeria.

• Introduction

For decades, Nigerian Courts have maintained the position that an unregistered registrable instrument was inadmissible to prove legal title to land, although it could be admitted for collateral purposes.  The settled position appeared to have been altered by the Supreme Court in Benjamin v. Kalio, only for the Court to seemingly revert to the traditional rule in Abdullahi v. Adetutu. The controversy was eventually revisited and clarified by the Supreme Court in TAAN v. SCOA Nigeria PLC. Judges, Legal Practitioners, Foremost Jurists, Legal Scholars are of two reasoning: those who believes that property-related instruments should be inadmissible, and accorded no probative values in legal proceedings, and others who are of the view that State Legislations – such as the Lands Instruments Registration Law, should have no effect whatsoever on how admissibility of documents should be conducted in Court, especially since there is an Evidence Act 2011 governing admissibility. The implications of tendering unregistered registrable land instrument in evidence have received contradictory judicial blessings in two respective cases – Benjamin v. Kalio (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38 and Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 338, wherein in the latter case, the Supreme Court did not even refer to the standing decision in Benjamin v. Kalio. However, this confusion has finally been laid to rest by the Supreme Court in the more recent case of TAAN v. SCOA Nig. PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt, 1985) 1. This article therefore examines the admissibility of unregistered title documents in Nigeria through the analysis of the aforementioned leading authorities.

• The Nature of Registrable Instruments

A registrable instrument is any document affecting land which, by virtue of the applicable Lands Instruments Registration Law, is required to be registered. Examples includes – Deeds of Assignment, Conveyances, Mortgages, Leases, Deeds of Gift, other instruments transferring interests in Land, except a WILL. Registration serves multiple purposes, including public notice, preservation of title records, and prevention of fraud. The question, however, is whether failure to register such an instrument merely affects its evidential weight or renders it inadmissible altogether.

• The Traditional Position: Okoye v. Dumez (Nig). Ltd.

The foundation of Nigerian Jurisprudence on this issue is the Supreme Court decision in Okoye v. Dumez (Nig.) Ltd. Here, the Supreme Court held that an unregistered registrable instrument cannot be admitted as an instrument affecting land for the purposes of proving legal title. Nevertheless, the Court recognized that such document may be admissible for collateral purposes – proof of payment of purchase money, evidence of possession, establishment of equitable interests, and evidence of the transaction between the parties. This decision established a distinction between the admissibility for proving legal title and admissibility for collateral or equitable purposes. For many years, this remained the accepted position of Nigerian Jurisprudence.

• The Constitutional Shift: Benjamin v. Kalio

The Supreme Court revisited the issue in Benjamin v. Kalio (supra) where the Court considered Section 15 of the Rivers State Land Instruments (Preparation and Registration) Law which prohibited the admission of unregistered registrable instruments in evidence. The Supreme Court, sitting as a full panel of Seven Justices, stated that matters relating to evidence falls within the exclusive legislative competence of the National Assembly in line with the Constitution of the FRN. Consequently, that a State House of Assembly lacked the constitutional competence to enact provisions regulating admissibility of evidence. The Court therefore concluded that the Rivers State provision purporting to render an unregistered registrable instrument inadmissible was unconstitutional to that extent.

Thus, the practical effect of the decision was that an unregistered registrable instrument could be admitted in evidence notwithstanding the provisions of the State registration law. The decision was widely regarded as a departure from the long-established rule in Okoye v. Dumez.

• The Reversal: Abdullahi v. Adetutu

Barely two years later, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Abdullahi v. Adetutu (supra) where the Court held that an unregistered registrable instrument is inadmissible for the purpose of proving title or interest in land. The Court reaffirmed the traditional principle that registration is a statutory condition precedent to the use of such an instrument as evidence of title. The significant difficulty with Abdullahi v Adetutu was that the Court did not expressly consider or distinguish the earlier seven-member panel decision in Benjamin v. Kalio.

Thus, the result of the aforementioned was the emergence of two apparently conflicting Supreme Court authorities: Benjamin v. Kalio (favoring admissibility) and Abdullahi v. Adetutu (favoring inadmissibility).

• Resolution of the Conflict: TAAN v. SCOA Nigeria PLC

The controversy laid down in Benjamin v. Kalio & Abdullahi v. Adetutu was eventually revisited in TAAN v. SCOA Nigeria PLC. (2025). Here, the Supreme Court used the opportunity to clarify the correct legal position and effectively endorsed the principle that an unregistered registrable instrument cannot be relied upon to establish legal title to land. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing distinction between admissibility to prove legal title; and admissibility for collateral purposes. The decision restored certainty to Nigerian land jurisprudence and aligned the law with the traditional authorities beginning from Okoye v. Dumez.

• Reconciling the Authorities

A proper reading of the authorities suggests the following propositions:

1. An unregistered registrable instrument cannot prove legal title: Following TAAN v. SCOA and Abdullahi v Adetutu, such an instrument cannot be relied upon as the root of title or as evidence establishing legal ownership of land in Nigeria.
2. The document may still be admissible for collateral purposes: Consistent with Okoye v. Dumez, the document may be admitted to establish – payment of consideration, possession, existence of a transaction, equitable interests, or acts of part performance.
3. Registration remains essential for perfection of title: Although a transaction may be valid between parties, registration remains necessary before instrument can operate effectively as legal evidence of title.

• Critical Evaluation

The reasoning in Benjamin v. Kalio was constitutionally attractive because it emphasized the exclusive legislative competence of the National Assembly over evidentiary matters. However, the decision arguably overlooked the distinction between a law regulating evidence generally and a law prescribing conditions for the effectiveness of land instruments. The approach in TAAN v. SCOA Nig. PLC appears more consistent with the objectives of land registration legislation, namely certainty, transparency, and protection of purchasers. By restoring the traditional rule, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that registration is not merely procedural, but constitutes a critical component of the legal architecture governing land transactions.

• Conclusion

The current position of Nigerian law is that an unregistered registrable instrument is generally inadmissible for the purpose of proving legal title to land. Such a document may nevertheless be admissible for collateral purposes, including proof of possession, payment of purchase price, or equitable interests. The Supreme Court’s decision in TAAN v. SCOA Nigeria PLC., has substantially resolved the uncertainty generated by the conflicting decisions in Benjamin v. Kalio and Abdullahi v. Adetutu.

Consequently, parties seeking to rely on deeds of assignment, conveyances and other registrable instruments as proof of title must ensure that such instruments are duly registered in accordance with the applicable land registration laws.  The lessons from the authorities are clear: while an unregistered instrument may evidence a transaction, registration remains indispensable where the instrument is intended to serve as proof of legal title to land.

Okoha Chijioke Innocent Esq.

Associate