The Nigerian courts have continued to lay down guiding principles on land transactions, agency commissions, and proof of title, with recent judgments from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court providing fresh insights for practitioners and litigants.
1. Proof of Purchase of Land â Turaki v. Major Oil (Nig.) Ltd. (2024) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1933) 75 CA
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a claimant who asserts ownership of land by purchase must prove it with cogent evidence such as a purchase receipt, sale agreement, or any credible fact indicating that the transaction took place. The court held that a purchase receipt evidences an agreement for sale and payment of consideration, while the deed of assignment or sale agreement must be duly authenticated to be acceptable. The decision drew support from earlier authorities including Otanna v. You-Dubagha (2006) and Adepate v. Babatunde (2002).
2. Duty of a Purchaser to Investigate Title â Edosa v. Ehimwenma (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1823) 215 SC
The Supreme Court restated the duty imposed on prospective land buyers to conduct due diligence on the vendorâs root of title and authority to sell before committing funds. The court ruled that one cannot transfer or sell what one does not own, declaring any transaction without legal authority void ab initio. In the case, the appellantâs purported purchase of land without the legal consent of the true owner was held invalid.
3. Commission of Agents in Land Transactions â Osas v. Tuedor-Mathews (2024) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1956) 509 SC
The apex court clarified the conditions under which an agent earns a commission in property transactions. It held that entitlement depends on the interpretation of the agency contract, the occurrence of the event upon which commission is payable, and clear contractual terms. The court emphasized that no commission is payable where an introduction does not result in an actual sale unless expressly stated in the contract. In this instance, the respondent failed to establish any valid agency contract with the appellants.
4. Documents of Title and Proof of Ownership â Edosa v. Ehimwenma (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1823) 215 SC
Revisiting another aspect of the same case, the Supreme Court noted that while ownership may be proved through documents of title such as conveyances, mortgages, or sale agreements, mere production of such documents does not automatically entitle a claimant to a declaration of title. Courts must investigate whether the documents are genuine, duly executed, stamped, registered, and whether the grantor had both the capacity and the authority to convey the interest purportedly granted.
5. Priority of Traditional Evidence in Title Disputes â Maranro v. Oyegoke (2025) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1980) 447 SC
In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court held that traditional evidence takes precedence over other methods of proving land ownership, as it usually goes to the root of how a claimant or predecessor acquired the land. Citing Sanusi v. Amoyegun (1992), the court reiterated that traditional history often provides a stronger foundation than other forms of evidence where it is credible and consistent.
Conclusion
These cases underscore the courtsâ insistence on due diligence, proper documentation, and compliance with established legal principles in land transactions. They also serve as guidance for practitioners, land buyers, vendors, and agents on the evidential requirements necessary to establish valid land ownership and related rights in Nigeria.



Contact & Orders đ 0704 444 4777 | 0704 444 4999 | 0818 199 9888 đ www.alexandernigeria.com
______________________________________________________________________ Groundbreaking Guide For Lawyers: Adigwe Publishes âArtificial Intelligence For Lawyersâ With Free Research eBook
