By Timileyin Ilesanmi
Few property problems are more unsettling than discovering that another person claims ownership of land or a house you have paid for. The claim may come from a family member of the seller, a rival purchaser, a tenant, a government agency, or someone relying on an older title document.
The first step is not panic or a public confrontation. It is a careful legal assessment of the competing titles, the documents available, the facts surrounding possession, and the remedies available under Nigerian law.
How should a purchaser respond when a third party asserts a competing interest in property already purchased? The purchaser must determine whether the claim is genuine, whether the vendor had authority to sell, whether the purchaser took reasonable steps before purchase, and whether the claimant’s interest predates or overrides the purchaser’s title.
Nigerian law does not treat every claim as equal. Producing a receipt or deed does not automatically make someone the owner. The claimant must establish a legally recognised root of title, while the purchaser must show the validity and priority of the interest acquired.
Establish the basis of each claim
Title to land in Nigeria may be proved in several ways. In Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 10 SC, the Supreme Court established 5 methods of proving title:
(1) By traditional evidence;
(2) By production of documents of title which must be duly authenticated;
(3) By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner;
(4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and
(5) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land is the owner of the land in dispute.
The purchaser should therefore compare the competing claims against these methods. Ask whether the claimant relies on family ownership, customary grant, a registered deed, a certificate of occupancy, a court judgment, long possession, or an earlier sale. A document alone may be insufficient where its origin is doubtful. The claimant must trace the document to a valid root of title and show how ownership passed to them.
The purchaser should also examine the vendor’s authority. In Edosa v. Ehimwenma (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1823) 215, the Supreme Court emphasised the purchaser’s duty to investigate the vendor’s root of title and authority to sell before committing funds. A vendor cannot validly transfer a better title than they possess, and a sale made without the true owner’s authority may be invalid.
Check possession and priority
Possession is important, but it is not conclusive. A purchaser in possession may have a strong equitable claim, particularly where payment has been made and the vendor has handed over the property. However, a prior claimant with a better legal title may still challenge the purchaser’s interest.
The timing of competing transactions matters. If the claimant bought or acquired an interest before the purchaser, the purchaser must establish why the later purchase should prevail. Conversely, if the purchaser bought first, obtained possession, and registered the relevant instrument, the claimant may face difficulty unless they can establish fraud, prior title, or some overriding interest.
Where the property was already subject to litigation when the purchaser bought it, the doctrine of lis pendens may apply. In Osagie v. Oyeyinka (1987) 6 SC 199, the Supreme Court held that property involved in a pending suit concerning title cannot be validly alienated during the suit; a purchaser during the pendency of such litigation takes subject to the outcome. A purchaser who ignores a pending title dispute may therefore acquire little or nothing.
Verify statutory compliance
In Lagos State and other parts of Nigeria, statutory compliance can determine whether a sale is effective. Under section 22 of the Land Use Act 1978, the consent of the Governor is generally required for the alienation of a statutory right of occupancy. A sale, assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, or sublease without the requisite consent may be invalid or voidable.
The Supreme Court has consistently treated non-compliance with the consent requirement seriously. In Savanah Bank Ltd. v Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.97) 305, the Court held that an alienation of land in breach of the Land Use Act consent requirement was null and void. The purchaser should therefore confirm whether the relevant consent was obtained and properly perfected.
Other checks include registration of the instrument at the Lands Registry, payment of applicable fees, search for registered encumbrances, confirmation of charting and survey details, and verification that the property is not subject to government acquisition, revocation, or pending compulsory acquisition.
Immediate steps for the purchaser
The purchaser should first assemble every document connected with the transaction: the contract of sale, deed of assignment, receipt, survey plan, evidence of payment, correspondence, photographs, possession documents, and any consent or registration evidence. These materials will show what was purchased, from whom, when, and on what terms.
Next, conduct fresh searches at the Lands Registry and relevant court registries. A registry search may reveal a prior registered instrument, mortgage, caveat, or notice. A court-registry search may reveal pending litigation affecting the property. Where a claimant alleges an interest, request copies of their documents and identify the precise basis of the claim.
The purchaser should also avoid further construction, demolition, sale, or major dealings with the property until the dispute is clarified. Acting aggressively while a claim is pending may worsen the purchaser’s position, especially if the property is already subject to litigation.
Legal remedies
If the claim appears baseless, the purchaser may seek a declaration of title, injunction to restrain interference, and damages for trespass where appropriate. If the vendor misrepresented ownership or sold property already subject to a superior claim, the purchaser may sue the vendor for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, or rescission and refund of the purchase price.
Where the claimant has a genuine competing interest, the purchaser may need to negotiate a settlement, seek restitution from the vendor, or defend proceedings by establishing the better title. Time is also important: an action to recover land is generally subject to a 12-year limitation period under the applicable limitation law.
Final note
A competing claim is a due-diligence problem as much as a litigation problem. Before buying, investigate the vendor’s root of title, conduct official searches, confirm consent and registration requirements, inspect the property, and speak with occupants and neighbours where necessary. After purchase, perfect documents promptly and take possession openly.
If someone claims the property after purchase, preserve the records, obtain legal advice quickly, and avoid signing any settlement or abandoning possession without understanding the legal consequences. The purchaser’s strongest protection is a documented, properly perfected transaction supported by a verifiable root of title.