In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 14th day of April, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Ibrahim Muhammed Musa Saulawa

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme

Stephen Jonah Adah

Jamilu Yammama Tukur

Justices, Supreme Court

SC.1049/2016

Between

MICHAEL AFOLAJIMI JOLUGBO                                         APPELLANT

(Suing on behalf of himself and other 

Beneficiaries of the Estate of M.A. Julogbo)

       And

 1. MRS O.A. AINA                                                                                               RESPONDENTS

2. LAGOS STATE DEVELOPMENT AND

     PROPERTY CORPORATION (L.S.D.P.C)

(Lead Judgement  delivered by Honourable Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JSC) 

Facts

The appeal challenges the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in Appeal No. CA/L/362/14 delivered on 30th March 2016 against the Appellant. The dispute centred on the validity of the title transfer of Flat 5 Block A 78, LSDPC Low-Cost Housing Estate, Dolphin, Anikantamo, Lagos, from the late Mr Olayinka Aina to the late M.A. Julogbo. Believing the 1st Respondent, who is Mr. Olayinka Aina’s wife was frustrating the sale, Mr. Aina and Mr Julogbo’s late father initiated Suit No. LD/3276/94 at the High Court of Lagos State, seeking a declaration that Mr Aina was the legal and beneficial owner of the property, that the title transfer to Julogbo was valid, and that Julogbo was entitled to possession. The 1st Respondent also filed Suit No. LD/769/97, claiming a trustee relationship existed between Mr Aina and herself, and that she is the beneficiary of the trust. She asserted that though the tile document of the property is in her husband’s name, she provided the funds for purchase of the property which was held in trust for her. She thereby, sought to set aside the sale to M.A. Julogbo.

The cases were consolidated for trial. On 19th November, 2004, the trial court found that a trust relationship existed between the 1st Respondent and Mr Olayinka Aina. The court, accordingly, set aside the sale. The Appellant’s late father and Mr Aina appealed, but, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 30th March, 2016. Dissatisfied, the Appellant, on behalf of other beneficiaries of Mr Julogbo’s estate, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Issues for Determination

Two issues were raised in the Appellant’s brief for determination, thus:

i. WHETHER the court processes filed by the 1st Respondent in the consolidated suits, are competent as to vest the lower court with jurisdiction to determine her right over the property in dispute?

ii. WHETHER from the evidence before the lower Court, a Resultant or implied Trust, can be implied to exist in favour of the 1st Respondent? If the answer is in the negative, whether the lower court, having found that the legal title resides in the 2nd Claimant, should not have held that the said Claimant validly transferred the legal title to the 1st Claimant?

Counsel for the 1st Respondent on his part raised four issues for determination of the appeal, while Counsel for the 2nd Respondent formulated two issues. The Supreme Court opined that the central question in the appeal is – Whether the lower courts were right to have granted the 1st Respondent’s title over the disputed property, on the principle of resulting trust.

Arguments

Counsel for the Appellant argued that there is no evidence, explicit or implied, demonstrating that Mr Olayinka Aina intended to transfer the property to the 1st Respondent on trust. He posited that at trial, the 1st Respondent produced no documentary title, but relied solely on oral testimony, which was outweighed by the substantial documentary evidence of title presented by the husband. Counsel supported this position with the authorities EZENNAH v ATTA (2004) 17 W.R.N. 1 S.C., MADU v MADU (2008) 2-3 S.C. (PT. II) 109, and FAGBENRO v AROBADI (2006) 19 W.R.N. 1 S.C. He submitted further that the 1st Respondent failed to establish any of the five recognised methods enumerated by the Supreme Court, to prove ownership of the disputed property. Conversely, the husband presented documentary evidence supporting his ownership. The Appellant placed reliance on the documents emanating from the 2nd Respondent, and there is no single document of title registered in the name of “Mrs Aina”, the 1st Respondent. Counsel relied on the authority of OJOH v KAMALU (2006) 6 W.R.N. 110 S.C. and AGBAREH v MIMRA (2008) 1 S.C. (Pt.3) 88, to buttress his submission.

Counsel contended that, Mr Aina had legal authority to transfer title to the Appellant. He argued further that, even if the 1st Respondent’s claim of a resulting trust were to succeed, the Appellant would still qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice—be it actual, constructive, or implied – as the Appellant duly conducted a title search at the 2nd Respondent’s office, which confirmed allocation to the said Mr Aina, with no indication of any trust affecting the property. Lastly, he argued that the 1st Respondent’s evidence regarding payments for mortgage and repairs, does not override the superior title evidence adduced by Mr Aina, and does not support her claim to a resulting trust. Furthermore, these documents are inconsistent with her testimony, where she expressly stated that she had no direct dealings with LSDPC and LBIC.

On the part of the 1st Respondent, Counsel contended that during the trial, the 1st Respondent, through both oral and documentary evidence, successfully established the circumstances giving rise to a presumption of a resulting trust in her favour. This formed the basis for the concurrent findings of the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal Justices, that a resulting trust indeed, existed in favour of the 1st Respondent. It was argued that the 1st Respondent paid the initial fees, contributed significantly to the property’s development, made mortgage repayments, and paid for the mandatory insurance policy on the flat, with her father acting as Guarantor, despite her husband’s father being alive during the relevant period. Counsel clarified further that the 1st Respondent did not dispute that legal title to the property was vested in her husband, as his name appeared on the title documents; however, she maintained that the equitable interest belonged to her, given her financial contributions toward the purchase and related expenses, thereby, creating a resulting trust for which she is the beneficiary.

Counsel submitted that the Appellant’s claim to ownership based solely on the title document bearing the name of Mr Aina was misplaced, as proof of a resulting trust invalidates the title. Counsel argued that the defence of a bona fide purchaser without notice would not succeed, because the Appellant’s father failed to exercise due diligence. The father did not demand the original title documents before the purchase, and admitted he neither inspected the flat nor investigated the tenancy, which would have revealed that the property belonged to the 1st Respondent. It was contended that Mr Aina acted in bad faith, and colluded with the Appellant to deprive the 1st Respondent of her proprietary interest. This argument referenced CLAY INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LTD v AINA (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 516) P. 208; FASESIN v OYERINDE (1997) 11 NWLR (PT. 530) 552; GBADAMOSI v AKINLOYE (2013) 15 NWLR (PT. 1378) P. 455; ABBA v S.P.D.C.N LTD (2013) 11 NWLR (PT. 1364) P. 86; and ORONTI v ONIGBANJO (2012) 12 NWLR (PT. 1313) P. 23.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

In resolving the issue of whether, given the circumstances of the case, a trust exists between Mr Olayinka Aina and the 1st Respondent (Mrs. O.A Aina), the Supreme Court distinguished between express trust and implied trust. Their Lordships explained that an express trust is evidenced by a trust deed, which clearly identifies the parties to the trust. In the case of an implied trust, resulting or constructive trust, an implied trust arises when the court infers the existence of a trust from the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the property. In such cases, the beneficiary of the trust is recognised as the true owner of the property, even though the legal title is held by the trustee. As a result of this, “the trustee must deal with the property in a way that would corrode the interests of the beneficiary.” The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in HUBNER v AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. LTD (2017) LPELR 42078(SC) (Pp 10 – 11 Paras D-E) where it was held that “when property has been acquired in such circumstance that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee … Constructive trust is neither granted nor accepted, but it is foisted upon the parties by the operation of law”.

Applying the above principles of trust to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court held that “the circumstances were one in which a trust relationship could be validly read into between the 1st Respondent and her deceased husband, the 2nd Claimant at trial, to the effect that she advanced money to her husband to buy a house on her behalf, so that even though he is the legal owner and his name appeared on all documents of title, her right is superior because she is the ultimate beneficiary and the true owner.” 

The court noted further that the Appellant’s argument, relying on the existence of legal title documents and the 1st Respondent’s failure to prove ownership by conventional means, was misplaced. The issue was not about legal ownership of the property, but rather whether the legal owner (the 2nd Claimant at the trial court) held the property in trust for the 1st Respondent. The Supreme Court emphasised that the 1st Respondent’s status as beneficial owner, is supported by the fact that she funded the purchase and made mortgage payments on the property.

The court concluded that the Appellant failed to give concrete grounds, for the Supreme Court to abrogate from the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit. 

Appeal Dismissed. 

Representation

Oladele Ojogbede for the Appellant. 

Micheal A. Aribisala for the 1st Respondent.

Olugbenga Ajala for the 2nd Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

​