"The first thing to be resolved now is, whether the Deed of Assignment (Exhibit "E") was pleaded and tendered as evidence of the transaction between Dr. Bailey and the Appellant, or it was pleaded and tendered as the document by which title to the parcels of land in dispute were transferred by Dr. Bailey to the Appellant. This is important because the legal implications or effects of the two scenarios differ.
This is in view of the provision of Sections 6, 7 and 16 of the Ogun State Land Instruments Registration Law, 2006, which stipulate that: "6. Subject to the provisions of this Law, every instrument executed after the commencement of this law shall be registered. 7. Subject to the provisions of this Law, every instrument executed before the commencement of this law and not already registered, shall be registered. 16. No instrument shall be pleaded or given in evidence in any Court as affecting any land unless the same have been registered in the proper office as specified in Sections 3..."
It would be seen that Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Instruments Registration Law (supra) make it mandatory that every instrument affecting land, which was executed either before or after the commencement of the Law, shall be registered. Registration of instruments affecting land has by Sections 6 and 7 of the Law, therefore been made mandatory. That is why Section 16 of the Law prohibits the pleading or tendering in evidence in any Court, any instrument affecting land, which has not been registered.
These provisions have, including other Laws in pari materia to it been interpreted numerous times by the Supreme Court and this Court. See Okafor v. Soyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (pt.698) 465; Obienu v. Okeke (2006) 16 NWLR (pt.1005) 225; Alhaji Abubakar v. Abubakar Waziri (2008) NWLR (pt.1108) 507; Nsiegbe v. Mgbemena (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.1042) 364. The legal effect is that where an instrument is required to be registered but is not registered, it cannot be pleaded and is therefore inadmissible in evidence. In other words any registrable instrument which is not registered cannot be pleaded nor tendered in evidence. Where it has been pleaded and tendered, it will be inadmissible in any event. Such an unregistered registrable instrument may however be pleaded and admitted to prove payment of purchase price, or as evidence of the transaction between the parties. If properly proved and admitted is proof of equitable interest which if coupled with possession is capable of ripening into a legal interest. See Oyebanji v. Lawanson (2004) 13 NWLR (pt.889) 62; Okoye v. Dumez (Nig) Ltd (1985) 1 NWLR (pt.4) 783; Alhaja Barakat Alafia & Ors v. Gbode Ventures (Nig) Ltd & Ors (2016) LPELR - 26065 (SC) and Adeniji v. Onagoruwa (2000) 1 NWLR (pt.639) 1.
To determine this issue, I am of the view that it would be proper to consider if the document in issue (Exhibit "E") qualify as an instrument requiring that it be registered. Section 2 of the Land Instruments Registration Law of Ogun State (supra) defines an "Instrument" as"... a document affecting land in the State whereby one party (hereinafter called the grantor) confers, transfers, limits, charges or extinguishes in favour of another party (hereinafter called the grantee) any right or title to or interest in land in the State."
To determine whether a document qualifies as an instrument within the context of Section 2 of the Land Instruments Registration Law of Ogun State (supra), the Court will not look at the form of the document but its contents. See Ogbimi v. Niger Construction Ltd (2006) 9 NWLR (pt.986) 474 and Agwunedu v. Onwumere (1994) 1 NWLR (pt.321) 375. On that note, I have carefully studied Exhibit "E". It is stipulated therein as follows: "AND FURTHER WHERE AS:
(a) The grantor hereby confirmed that in consideration for the love and affection, which he has for the grantee, he has transferred/granted all the unexpired terms of his interest in ALL THE FARMLAND DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT to the grantee to hold the same absolutely and free from all encumbrances. [underlined for emphasis].
(b) That the grantee shall obtain all forms, papers and documents which shall be necessary from the government and or as may be required under the law for the purpose of effecting title (legal or equitable) of all the said parcel of land on the .. grantee." It is clear to me that paragraph (a) reproduced above, had the effect of transferring absolute title in the land in dispute from Dr. Bailey to the Appellant. Paragraph (b) is not relevant to the issue of transfer of title from Dr. Bailey to the Appellant. The best effect or impact of paragraph (b) is that it enjoined the Appellant to take steps to secure his title under the law, for example by registering the Deed of Assignment and obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
I am therefore satisfied that the Deed of Assignment Exhibit "E" is a registrable instrument, and there is no dispute that it was not registered as required by law. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has however insisted that Exhibit "E" was never tendered as the instrument conferring title to the Appellant but as evidence of the transaction between Dr. Bailey and the Appellant. Indeed, it is the law that, though a registrable instrument which is not registered is inadmissible in evidence, it may still be pleaded and tendered as either evidence of the payment of purchase price, or of the transaction between the parties. See Agwunedu & Ors v. Onwumere (supra) at 375; Mrs Gladys Appah v. Mrs Chinyere Egwuatu (2012) LPELR - 20847 (CA); Obijuru v. Ozims (1985) NWLR (pt.6) 167; Buraimoh v. Karimu (2009) 9 NWLR (pt.618) 310 at 325 and Ogunjumo v. Ademolu (1995) 4 NWLR (pt.389) 265. See also W.A. Cotton Ltd v. Maiwada (2008) All FWLR (pt. 405) 1784 at 1796.
In order to determine whether Exhibit "E" was pleaded as the Appellant's root of title, or as evidence of the transaction between Dr. Bailey and the Appellant, it would be necessary to look at the pleadings. The learned trial Judge clearly realized that fact, when he held that, the pleadings must unambiguously state what the document pleaded intends to achieve. The learned trial Judge then found that Exhibit "E" was not pleaded in this case as evidence of the transaction between Dr. Bailey and the Appellant; but that it was pleaded in proof of or as evidence of title. As earlier stated, the learned trial Judge in coming to that decision relied on paragraphs 4, 8 and 30(1) of the Amended Statement of Claim. I am of the view that the relevant paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim on the issue are paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30(1). I had in the course of this judgment reproduced those paragraphs. Now, in construing any document, including a Statement of Claim, the Court is enjoined to read all the paragraphs of the document together. In other words in construing a document, the document should be read together as one single document; or as a whole. The document must be given a wholistic consideration.
It is when the document is read as a whole, that the Court will come to an interpretation which will bring out the intention of the framer of the document. See Agbareh v. Mimra (2008) NWLR (pt.1071) 378. Furthermore, parties are bound by their pleadings and no party is allowed to lead evidence on facts which they have not pleaded. See FBN Plc. v. Excel Plast. Ind Ltd (2003) 13 NWLR (pt.837) 412; Adetoun Oladeji (Nig.) Ltd v. N.B. (2007) 15 WRN 1 and Shell Dev. Co. Ltd v. Otoko (1990) 6 NWLR (pt.159) 693. I have carefully considered the facts pleaded in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30(1) of the Amended Statement of Claim. Upon construction of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the relief sought by the Appellant in paragraph 30(1) of the Amended Statement of Claim, it is clear to me that Exhibit "E", i.e. the Deed of Assignment was not pleaded as evidence of the transaction between Dr. Bailey and the Appellant. The Deed of Assignment was clearly pleaded as the basis or root of title of the Appellant. It has been pleaded by the Appellant as the instrument which transferred title to the parcels of land listed in the said Deed of Assignment to him. Both parties are agreed that the said Deed of Assignment, being an instrument affecting land or transferring land was not registered.
By Section 16 of the Land Instruments Registration Law of Ogun State (supra), it could neither be pleaded nor tendered in evidence. It was therefore inadmissible in evidence. The learned trial Judge was therefore right when he expunged same from the record. It was incapable of being tendered nor admitted as evidence of title."
Per TSAMMANI, J.C.A. IN UMAR v. BAILEY & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44285(CA)
