FROM KALIO TO SCOA: RECONCILING SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE ON UNREGISTERED LAND INSTRUMENT IN NIGERIA

Abstract

This paper critically examines the evolving jurisprudence of the Nigerian Supreme Court on the admissibility of unregistered land instruments, focusing on three landmark decisions: illuminate the tension between statutory formalism and equitable justice within Nigeria’s dual land law system, where statutory requirements for registration often conflict with customary practices and informal transactions. The analysis traces a judicial shift from rigid exclusion of unregistered documents towards a more pragmatic and context-sensitive approach that accommodates possession, part performance, and contractual intent. In Benjamin v Kalio, the Court adopted a strict interpretation of the Land Instruments Registration Law, holding that unregistered instruments affecting land in Rivers State were inadmissible in evidence. This decision reinforced the primacy of statutory compliance and underscored the risks associated with informal land dealings. However, in Abdullahi v Adetutu, the Court recognised the admissibility of unregistered documents for limited purposes, such as proving equitable interest and acts of possession, particularly where customary law governed the transaction. This marked a departure from rigid formalism and reflected a growing judicial sensitivity to the socio-legal realities of land ownership in Nigeria. Taan v SCOA further expanded this reasoning by admitting an unregistered deed to establish contractual intention and prevent unjust enrichment, signalling a more balanced jurisprudence that prioritises substantive justice. The paper argues that while registration remains essential for legal title, the Supreme Court has increasingly embraced equitable doctrines to protect parties acting in good faith. By reconciling these decisions, the study offers a coherent framework for understanding the admissibility of unregistered land instruments in Nigeria. It concludes with practical recommendations for legal practitioners, landowners, and policymakers, emphasising the need for doctrinal clarity, procedural reform, and equitable safeguards in land documentation.