STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

STATE LANDS ARE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES – SUCH LANDS ARE HELD IN TRUST

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Their powers under the law are limited to leasing them to diverse persons, and accepting forfeitures and surrenders of leases. There appears to be substance in this contention. State lands in Nigeria invariably originate from compulsory acquisitions of such lands from individuals or communities for public purposes. Such lands are held in trust by the acquiring government for use for the public purpose for which the land was acquired and in accordance with the public policy of the state as enshrined in the laws of the state.

– Nnaemeka-agu, JSC. Ude v. Nwara (1993)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

land, trust

WHEN TWO COMPETING HISTORIES ARE CONTRADICTORY IN LAND MATTERS

In Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223 it was held that- “Where there is a conflict of traditional history which had been handed down by words of mouth one side or the other must be mistaken, yet both may be honest in their belief. In such a case, the demeanour of witnesses is of little guide to the truth. The best way is to test the traditional history by reference to facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of the two competing histories is more probable.”

Was this dictum helpful?

THE THREE ELEMENTS OF A TRUST

Trust involves three elements, namely:- 1. A trustee, who holds the trust property and is subject to equitable duties to deal with it for the benefit of another. 2. A beneficiary to whom the trustee owes equitable duties to deal with the trust property for his benefit. 3 Trust property, which is held by the trustee for the beneficiary. See Black’s Law Dictionary, Page 1513.

— P.A. Galumje, JSC. Huebner v Aeronautical Ind. Eng. (2017) – SC.198/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

IMPLIED TRUSTS DOES NOT REQUIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SETTLOR & TRUSTEE

An implied trust founded upon the unexpressed intention of the settlor and same is raised and created by implication of law from the surrounding circumstances of the case. It does not require agreement between the settlor and trustee. See Adekeye v Akin Olugbade (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 214 at 227; Kotoye v Saraki (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 357) 414 at 443 Paragraph H. Constructive trust is neither granted nor accepted, but it is foisted upon the parties by the operation of law. To that extent, the question of whether the Appellant produced evidence of the resolution of the Board of the Respondent authorizing such a trust does not arise at all.

— P.A. Galumje, JSC. Huebner v Aeronautical Ind. Eng. (2017) – SC.198/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT CONSTITUTES A RESULTING TRUST – CANNOT RELY ON RESULTING TRUST IF NOT PLEADED

For the definition of what constitutes resulting trust see the case of Shephard vs. Cartwright (1995) AC 431 at 445. See also Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition at page 1315. As clearly illustrated in the leading judgment of my learned brother, Tobi, JSC, there are no hard and fast rules about what amounts to resulting trust especially as it relates to land. Where it arises, the claimant of the piece of land must prove by hard and concrete evidence that he actually owned and/or was entitled to the land but voluntarily or involuntarily opted that the Title Deed or Deed of Assignment be made in favour of another in anticipation of a marriage of whatever the case may be. Where a party as in the instant case, fails to properly plead the issue of resulting trust (or any other trust) he cannot raise the issue at the address stage or on appeal as the evidence or arguments or submissions on facts not hitherto pleaded, go to no issue.

— Onu, JSC. Ezennah v Atta (2004) – SC.226/2000

Was this dictum helpful?

ONCE THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT FOR SALE, THE VENDOR BECOMES A TRUSTEE

Jessel, MR in Lysaght v. Edwards (1876) CH.D 499 stated the following on the doctrine of constructive trust:- “What is that doctrine? It is that the moment you have a valid contract for sale, the vendor becomes in equity a trustee for the purchase of the estate sold and the beneficial ownership passes to the purchaser, the vendor having a right to the purchase money, and a right to retain possession of the estate until the purchase money is paid in the absence of express contract as to the time of delivering possession … If anything happens to the estate between the time of sale and the time of completion of the purchase, it is at the risk of the purchaser; if it is a house to be sold and the house is burnt down, the purchaser looses the house. He must insure it himself if he wants to prevent such an accident. If it is a garden and river overflows its bank without any fault of the vendor, the garden will be ruined, but the loss will be the purchaser’s.”

Was this dictum helpful?

TYPES OF TRUST – WHERE IMPLIED TRUST WILL ARISE

To this end, there are Express Trusts, Implied or Resulting Trusts and Constructive Trusts. Express Trusts arise when the owner declares himself a trustee of the property for the benefit of another person or vests property in another person as trustee for the benefit of another person. Implied or Resulting Trust arise from the presumed intention of the owner, and the presumed intention arises by operation of law not by agreement of parties Constructive Trusts are trusts imposed by equity regardless of the intention of the owner of the property, where it will be unconscionable for the “apparent beneficial owner” or trustee to hold the property for his benefit- see Equity and Trust in Nigeria 2nd Ed. by J. O. Fabunmi. We are concerned with implied or resulting trusts, which may arise in the following circumstances – (i) Where an express trusts fails (ii) Where the beneficial interest under an express trust is not fully disposed of or exhausted. (iii) Where there is a purchase in the name of another or where a person makes a voluntary conveyance of his property to another.

— A.A. Augie, JSC. Huebner v Aeronautical Ind. Eng. (2017) – SC.198/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.