By George Ogunjimi

In Nigeria, a receipt for the purchase of land is generally evidence of payment and may constitute evidence of a transaction, but it is not, standing alone, conclusive proof of ownership of the land. The distinction between proof of payment and proof of title is important because a person may prove that he paid money for land without necessarily proving that the person who received the money had a valid title capable of being transferred to him.

The Supreme Court has consistently established that there are five recognised methods of proving title to land. In Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9–10 SC 227, the Supreme Court identified them as: (1) traditional evidence; (2) production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed; (3) acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and numerous and positive enough to warrant an inference of ownership; (4) acts of possession and enjoyment of the land; and (5) proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances making it probable that the owner of the connected land is also the owner of the land in dispute. This principle has repeatedly been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, including in Nwabuoku v. Onwordi (2006) and Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007).

A mere receipt does not automatically fall within the category of a document of title. Its evidential value depends considerably on its contents and the circumstances surrounding the transaction. For example, a receipt that merely states that a particular sum of money was received from a purchaser may establish payment, but it does not necessarily establish that the vendor owned the land or had authority to sell it. The purchaser must still establish the transaction and, where ownership is contested, the relevant root of title.

This position is illustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Okuoja v. Ishola (1982) 7 SC 260. The case concerned purchasers who relied, among other things, on purchase receipts. The Supreme Court considered the evidential value of purchase receipts and emphasised the problem where the receipts did not adequately identify the land to which they related. This demonstrates that a receipt may have evidential value without necessarily constituting conclusive proof of title.

Furthermore, in Nwabuoku v. Onwordi (2006), the Supreme Court reiterated that a claimant seeking a declaration of title must prove title to a defined parcel of land, and that one of the recognised methods of establishing title is the production of duly authenticated and executed documents of title. The burden rests initially on the person claiming title.

However, it would be incorrect to say that a receipt is legally worthless in a land dispute. A receipt can be significant evidence of a sale or purchase, particularly where it is supported by other evidence such as a sale agreement, survey plan, possession, witnesses, correspondence, evidence of payment through a bank, or documents showing the vendor’s title. Indeed, in Chief Jacob N. Obasi v. Sylvanus O. Ebenugwu (2014), the Court of Appeal recognised circumstances in which payment for land, coupled with a receipt and possession, could create an equitable interest in the purchaser. The court nevertheless considered the broader evidence establishing the purchaser’s interest rather than treating the receipt alone as conclusive ownership.

It is also important to distinguish ownership from the validity of the seller’s title. The principle nemo dat quod non habet—that one cannot give what one does not have—is applicable. Thus, where a purchaser obtains a receipt from a person who has no valid title to the land, the receipt cannot, by itself, magically confer a better title on the purchaser. The courts have emphasised the necessity, where challenged, of tracing the root of title of the vendor or grantor.

Consequently, a purchaser should not rely solely on a receipt when acquiring land in Nigeria. Depending on the nature of the transaction and the applicable law, the purchaser should obtain appropriate documentation such as a Deed of Assignment or other appropriate instrument of transfer, survey plan, evidence of the vendor’s title, and the necessary governmental consent and registration. Even a document described as a title document is not necessarily conclusive: the court may examine whether it is genuine and valid, whether it was properly executed, and whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to transfer the interest.

In conclusion, a receipt is primarily proof that money was paid or received; it is not, by itself, conclusive proof of ownership of land in Nigeria. It may, however, be an important piece of evidence supporting a claim that a sale took place and, when combined with other credible evidence, may contribute to establishing an interest in or title to the land. The ultimate question in a land dispute is whether the claimant has established title through one of the recognised methods laid down in Idundun v. Okumagba and subsequent authorities.
Therefore, where a person has only a receipt for land, without a proper instrument of transfer or other evidence establishing the vendor’s title and the transaction, it would be unsafe to conclude that the receipt alone makes that person the legal owner of the land.

• George Ogunjimi is a Legal Practitioner and can be reached at jurisrepubliclegal@gmail.com

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.