By Abubakar D. Sani, Esq.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
INTRODUCTION
Seldom has the verdict of a foreign tribunal riveted Nigerians as the opinion of Judge Ewan Paton of the Property Tribunal, London, U.K, in respect of the ownership of No. 79 Randall Avenue, Neasden, North London. The antecedent facts are fully in the public domain, so it would be superfluous to regurgitate have them – beyond, that is, what is essential for this intervention, whose goal is to separate them from their presumed legal consequences, both over there and – more importantly – here in Nigeria.
Many have been dismayed and a few others (the vocal minority) have condemned the apparent role played by the defendant (called “respondent” in the proceedings) of prominent lawyer (a Senior Advocate of Nigeria) Prof Mike Ozekhome, pointing out some comments and remarks of the judge in his verdict. To the extent that those remarks apparently indicted him, these critics have glossed over the positive (if not quite complimentary) findings of the Tribunal in his favor. Before going into those details, a few comments about the antecedent facts, as found by the tribunal, which formed the background of its decision.
BACKGROUND
The dispute arose from the objection of one “Ms. Tali Shani” to Prof. Ozekhome’s application to the Land Registry in England to be registered as the owner of the property which was ostensibly transferred to him by another “Tali Shani”, this time, male. So, two Tali Shanis, therefore, jointly laid claim to the same property. In the event, the judge found that neither existed as a matter of fact; in other words, their evidence was fabricated. He, therefore, ruled that the claims of both the objector to Prof Ozekhome’s registration (Ms. Tali Shani) and that of Prof. Ozekhome himself failed.
The Tribunal also found, however, that the property was purchased by the late Gen. Jeremiah Useni way back in 1993. In its words, the General “was in truth the sole legal and beneficial owner of this property (albeit registered in a false name)”. The Tribunal further found (in the same portion of its judgment – Paragraph 200) that the Gen. “must in some way have been connected to (the) transfer (to Prof, Ozekhome) and to have directed it (as) he was clearly close to, and on good terms with the respondent”; adding for good measure that there was “no question of this being some sort of attempt by (Prof. Ozekhome) to steal the General’s property without his knowledge”, and furthermore (in paragraph 202) that “it was the decision of General Useni to transfer the property to (Prof. Ozekhome)”.
Had the tribunal stopped there, none of the fuss and dust raised by Prof. Ozekhome’s involvement would have arisen and nothing would have been amiss. However, it did not, as it held that certain evidence proffered by the Prof. and his son (in particular, some documents he submitted to the Land Registry such as a copy of the Nigerian passport of Mr. Tali Shani, which showed that he was born in April 1973 – twenty years before he purportedly purchased the property in 1993 and the oral testimony of the purported transferor, Mr. Tali Shani) were “contrived” and “invented” (Paragraph 206 of the judgment). In other words, they were perjured.
Now, giving or fabricating evidence before a judicial tribunal is a very serious offence. That is the law both in England and in Nigeria. The issue is, however, more nuanced than that – and this is where most commentators (including supposed ‘learned’ ones, i.e. legal practitioners) got it wrong. This is because they failed to grasp the elementary point that context is everything – even in a judicial proceeding and any apparently damning revelations that may emerge therefrom. More specifically, any allegation of the commission of a crime (any crime -including perjury or forgery) is required to be established by evidence according to the applicable standard – beyond reasonable doubt. This process consists of a formal charge, plea and defense, if any. Where such a charge is denied (as it, undoubtedly is, in this case) the prosecution is required to prove, not only the conduct, act or acts and words or omissions of the defendant which are alleged to constitute the offence (called “actus reus” in law) but – even more importantly – the mental element or guilty mind which accompanied such overt act or acts or with which it was contemporaneously done. In law, this is called “mens rea”. If it is missing, no crime is committed and the prosecution (or conviction) must fail. See Chapters XII and XX of the Penal Code applicable in the FCT, Abuja and the 36 Northern States which deal with forgery and perjury. Similar provisions, no doubt, exist under English law (from where such concepts were borrowed and incorporated into Nigerian law, pre-independence).
That being the case, the obvious question is: what guilty mind (or malevolent or other untoward or even fraudulent intention) could possibly have informed the allegedly false evidence which Prof. Ozekhome and his son purportedly proffered before Judge Paton? What was his or their aim, goal, motive or objective? Did they intend, by such conduct or words to fraudulently ‘corner’ (to use the tribunal’s words, “steal General Useni’s property without his knowledge”)? These questions were answered by the tribunal categorically and unequivocally in the negative in Paragraph 202 of its judgment. I believe this is a complete exoneration of Prof. Ozekhome and his son. I encourage everyone (especially those trained in the law) to read and re-read that judgment (particularly Paragraph 202 thereof as aforesaid) vis-à-vis the ingredients of the offences of forgery and perjury under both Nigerian and English law.
I humbly submit, with every sense of responsibility, that if they do so with an open mind, they will come to the same conclusion. I hasten to add that I am not holding brief for Prof. Ozekhome or his son (even though they are both known to me and he – in particular- is like a benefactor and brother). Facts are, however, facts and so – by the way – is the law. Neither can be twisted nor manipulated. The latter, in particular, i.e., the law, is governed by a set of rules which are immutable and are as fixed as the Northern Star and the Rock of Gibraltar. I repeat: no crime can be committed without the requisite mental element or guilty mind: where it is lacking, an accused person is innocent. In Prof. Ozekhome’s case, the worst that can be accused of is over-exertion – borne out of over-anxiety – faced with the prospect of losing what was rightfully his, to a fraudster who was clearly intent in reaping where he (or she) did not sow. In other words, Prof. Ozekhome was the victim here – and no one else.
Thus, he deserves our sympathy for losing what was clearly intended by the adjudged owner (Gen. Useni) to be either an outright gift or otherwise to him. He has been more sinned against than sinning. It is, therefore, strange and uncharitable that naysayers have gone to town crying for his head. Are they crying more than the bereaved? Who, by the way, are the bereaved? Yes, there is a public interest in ensuring that the streams of justice are kept pure and free. This is undoubtedly so in the case of perjury – rightly so, if it is to remain the last hope of the common and not-so-common man; but not for the likes of Ms. Tali Shani and his or her cohorts. They are the real (and only) culprits in this saga. By all means, they should be unmasked and brought to book – not Prof Ozekhome, whose reputation which he has worked so hard to build over the years is now at risk.
His benefactor, Gen Useni is dead (may his soul rest in peace). It is not hard to imagine that he would be turning in his grave at the needless fuss being made over his property and the unfortunate distress to which it has exposed Prof. Ozekhome. History, however, will vindicate the just. Suffice it to say that if he made any mistakes (and we all make mistakes, don’t we, being human) they were mistakes of the head – not of the heart – thus negativing the requisite mental element or mens rea, an indispensable ingredient of criminal liability as aforesaid. See Sections 23 and 25 of the Criminal Code on force across the Southern States of Nigeria.
LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Beyond all the foregoing, I believe that Judge Paton was wrong in the legal conclusions he drew, even from the facts as found by him, in his judgment. I believe that certain legal issues arose for determination (and might still be relevant, going forward) – some of which, unfortunately, he did not advert his mind to and address – as he was legally bound to do. Those issues, in my view, include the following:
- What should a Judge do where a property purchased in a fictitious name which is sought to be transferred is contested before him by a faceless or anonymous claimant?
- Should he reject the transfer on that or some other ground(s), such as an attempt by the transferee to effect it in that name in the course of which he/she/it may have engaged in or resorted to somewhat untoward practices – such as perjury?
- Should such malfeasance be sufficient to void the transfer, thus negating the manifest intention of the actual owner?
- What difference, if any, can or should equity make in the situation? Will it not look at the substance of the transaction as expressed in the intention of the true owner and give effect to it, disregarding the form in which he purchased the property (the fictitious name which he used)?. As between the proposed transferee and the faceless, bogus, caveator, whose claim is stronger either in law or at equity?
- In the event that the actual owner has passed before the judgment was pronounced, will the judex be justified to decide that the property will devolve on his estate – as the subject of Probate or Administration? Would that be a judicious exercise of judicial discretion?
- Will it make a difference that the parties (particularly the transferee) was not heard on the propriety of making that decision or otherwise? Was he/she/it entitled to be heard? Did he/she/it have that right under any rule of law or practice and if so, what is the consequence of its breach?
- What is the consequence of filing a case or lodging a caveat against a property transfer in a false or fictitious name or by a non-juristic person (i.e. the plaintiff or caveator)? Should both the caveat and/or the claim not be dismissed as untenable and/or an abuse?
From these issues, I believe the following legal consequences ensued:
- The Tribunal grievously erred in ordering the property to devolve on Gen. Useni’s estate – apparently without hearing from the named parties, both real and fictitious. In that regard, he violated their (read: Prof. Ozekhome’s) right to fair hearing.
- That order flew in the face of the accepted standard of proof of civil cases, which is on a balance of probabilities. Simply put, Prof. Ozekhome’s case (backed by Gen. Useni’s testimony) was more probable and credible – notwithstanding the supposed ‘invention or contrivance’ of parts thereof.
- Equity ought to have made the difference in the circumstances – by looking at the substance, and not the form, in which the original transaction was recorded back in 1993. Had the Tribunal properly directed itself in this regard, it should have simply invoked its equitable jurisdiction to give effect to the General’s expressed intention – which the Tribunal itself accepted (in Paragraphs 200 & 202 of its judgment) was to transfer the property to Prof Ozekhome.
- The question that cries loudly for an answer is: why it failed to do so and, instead, chose to leave it to the General’s Estate, whose interest – being latter in time to that of Prof. Ozekhome – ought to have been subordinated thereto (where the equities are equal, the 1st in time prevails).
- I repeat that, in the circumstances, the purported ‘contrivance’ or ‘invention’ did not suffice to deny Prof. Ozekhome of a verdict – that is, had the Tribunal properly directed itself as above (in terms of priority between competing equitable interests and the standard of proof in civil cases).
- A court or Tribunal is not a Father Christmas that will award to a non-party what he/she/it did not claim. To the extent that the Tribunal did so in this case, it acted in excess of its power and jurisdiction and thereby breached Prof. Ozekhome’s right to fair hearing under European Human Rights Law.
- This factor alone, in my view, ought to suffice to invalidate the Tribunal’s decision – to be replaced with an order of retrial or for rectification of the Land Register (under the Land Registration Rules 2003 applicable in England and Wales) to reflect the fact that, not only was Gen Useni the real owner, but he – and not Tali Shani – was the actual transferor of the property to Prof. Ozekhome. Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done and equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.
CONCLUSION
I believe that public perception that the Tribunal somehow indicted Prof. Ozekhome and his son is borne out of sentiment rather than the facts – much less the law. I dare say that, from the foregoing analysis, the same can be said of Judge Paton himself. Regretfully – with all due respect. This is because, in Nigeria, it is settled beyond cavil that, sentiment has no place in judicial adjudication; See ORHUE VS. NEPA (1998) 5 SCNJ 126@ 141; OMOTE VS. ADEYEMO (1994) 4 NWLR PT. 336 PG. 48 (CA); EZEUGO V. OHANYERE (1978) 6-7 S.C 171 @ 184; GROSVENOR CASINOS VS. HALALOUI (2009) Legalpedia (SC) 10511 and ANIKE VS. SPDCN (2011) 7 NWLR pt. 1246 pg. 227 @ 243 (CA).
Neither Prof. Ozekhome nor his son can (or should) be indicted by revelations emanating from an objection (caveat) or judicial proceeding lodged or instituted at the behest of a fictitious, anonymous, faceless and bogus person. Both the caveat and the suit were non-existent in the eyes of the law. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand: it must fall, as ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing); OGUNLANA VS. FASANYA (2019) Legalpedia, CA/L/110/2016; MACFOY V UAC (1961) 3 W.L.R 1405 @ 1409 and OKAFOR VS NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR pt. 1043 pg. 521.
Abubakar D. Sani, Esq.
6th October, 2025.
A timely new publication, Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria, co-authored by Olumide Babalola and Uchenna Nnawuchi, 📘 Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria is now available on Amazon: https://a.co/d/8TmFZrd
______________________________________________________________________
Groundbreaking Guide For Lawyers: Adigwe Publishes ‘Artificial Intelligence For Lawyers’ With Free Research eBook
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
______________________________________________________________________
Alexander Payne Co. Law Reports
Contact & Orders 📞 0704 444 4777 | 0704 444 4999 | 0818 199 9888 🌐 www.alexandernigeria.com
______________________________________________________________________
The books are available for purchase at:
Online: www.educodex.com | www.selar.com | www.amazon.com | www.mikeozekhome.com
Enquiries: +234 704 044 9375 | +234 814 813 4773 | +234 816 872 3532
Email: educodexl@gmail.com
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
