Late Registration, Defective Attestation and a Second Purchaser

Issue. Execution and attestation are formal requirements, but not every irregularity destroys the deed.

Analysis. An assignment of land must be made by deed, signed, sealed and delivered by the assignor. Ada’s signature is not required for an assignment executed by Bello as grantor; the grantee’s acceptance is shown by payment and possession of the deed. The critical question is attestation. The attestation clause was signed by Bello’s brother, who was also the solicitor’s clerk. A witness need not be independent in the sense of being a stranger, but the attestation must be true: the witness should have been present when Bello signed or acknowledged the deed. The fact that the witness was the solicitor’s clerk is not automatically fatal; the fact that he was Bello’s brother may invite scrutiny but does not by itself void the deed. If the attestation is false, the deed may be challenged, but the defect is curable by evidence of execution.

Conclusion. The deed is probably validly executed by Bello and the attestation is not void merely because of the witness’s relationship. The more serious problem is the absence of Governor’s consent, which is a substantive requirement for alienation of a statutory right of occupancy.

Issue. Stamping and registration affect admissibility and priority, not the intrinsic validity of the transaction between the parties.

Analysis. Late stamping attracts a penalty, but it does not invalidate the deed. An unstamped instrument is inadmissible in evidence until stamped; once stamped, it can be relied on. Late registration is different: registration laws generally give priority according to the date of registration, not the date of execution, for registrable instruments. Chika registered first and bought for value without notice of Ada. If Chika’s deed is otherwise valid and stamped, she has the stronger priority under the registration statute. Ada’s earlier equitable interest may bind a purchaser who had notice, but Chika had none. However, both deeds lack Governor’s consent. If consent is mandatory and its absence renders the alienation void, neither party can rely on the deed as a valid transfer, and the contest may collapse into a claim against Bello for breach of contract and fraud.

Conclusion. Late stamping does not defeat Ada; late registration does. Chika’s prior registration gives her priority if her deed is valid. But the missing Governor’s consent is a threshold obstacle for both parties and may make the priority contest academic.

Issue. The case is a checklist of conveyancing safeguards.

Analysis. Before completion, the solicitor should have investigated Bello’s root of title, searched the Lands Registry for encumbrances and cautions, confirmed that the land was within an area where a statutory right of occupancy was held, and obtained the Governor’s consent to the alienation. The consent requirement is not a formality: an assignment of a statutory right of occupancy without consent is vulnerable to being declared void. The solicitor should also have checked Bello’s identity and capacity, obtained a survey plan, and verified the deed’s attestation. After completion, the deed should have been stamped within the statutory period and registered immediately. Ada’s solicitor should have retained the original deed, obtained a stamped copy, and lodged a caution or caveat if registration could not be completed at once. Relying on an unregistered deed while the vendor remains in possession is precisely how a second purchaser wins.

Conclusion. Ada’s solicitor should have obtained consent, stamped and registered promptly, and searched before payment. Ada may now have a claim against Bello for breach of contract and against the solicitor for professional negligence, but her proprietary claim against Chika is weak.