Shaiye Gbenga & Co.

04/01/2023

10 Omonilelawyer’s Rules On What You MUST Do Before You Buy A Land Or House

1. Never buy a land or house based on an image, flyer, or video sent to you. Try to visit the property PHYSICALLY so that you can decide whether you like it or not. The majority of images you see online at the end of the day, it's always a case of what I ordered vs. what I received.

Send a member of your family, a friend, a work colleague, a lawyer, or a surveyor to look at it on your behalf if you are unable to see it yourself. If you cannot find anyone to view it for you, forget the property. You might be saving yourself a future headache by doing that.

2. After viewing the property, the next thing you must ask for are copies of the title documents for the land or house so that you can investigate them.

A title document here refers to the proof or evidence of ownership of the land or house they intend to sell to you. That land or house did not fall from the sky. It was acquired from either another person, group of people, community, or government.

The title documents the land seller must possess may come in the form of A deed of assignment, survey plan, purchase receipt, excision survey, letter of allocation, contract of sale, will, letter of administration, C of O, Governor’s Consent, Memorandum of Understanding, layout, deed of rectification, court judgment, etc. This list is not all-inclusive.

3. Anyone that intends to sell a parcel of land or house either as a personal seller, omonile or real estate company MUST hand over photocopies of the necessary title documents of the land to you to investigate.

Any seller that declines to provide you with copies of that document so you can verify them is a potential land or property con artist. Any illogical reason they give you for not revealing information to you to aid your investigation is a warning sign and red flag; you MUST walk away.

4. As soon as they hand you copies of the title documents, give them right away to a property lawyer so they may review them. Many seasoned property lawyers, like myself, have examined thousands of land documents over the years and can advise you whether to move forward with the verification just by looking at it or to terminate the transaction right away.

For example, my 17 years of experience as a specialist property verification lawyer has made me know how to identify fake C of Os-(Certificate of Occupancy) fake Governor’s Consent, or forged Deeds of Assignment right away.

I have seen too many wayo, too many fraudulent, and too many questionable documents to make me know if the seller is trying to defraud you or waste my time. If I am not too sure if it was a fraudulent document, that’s when I would recommend further verification on the property.
5. A property verification must include one or more of the following

i. Investigating the land physically

ii. Verifying the title documents at the land registry

iii. Conducting a site search at the surveyor general’s office

iv. Visiting the Courts as appropriate to determine whether the property or seller is involved in any pending legal proceedings

v. Visiting the community to determine if there is an outstanding dispute or court issue

vi. Visiting the probate division to verify a will or letter of administration

vii. Check the Cabinet office to ensure the Gazette and Excision are authentic

viii. Visiting the surveyor general’s office to verify the authenticity of the coordinates and location on the survey plan

ix. Knowing the complete profile of the seller to know if you are dealing with the appropriate person that has the capacity to sell or not

x. Investigating the previous owners of the property to know if the land was properly transferred to the seller.

6. Once these steps are vigorously taken by the property lawyer, a search report must be given to the potential buyer detailing the search process, what was investigated, where it was investigated and the final report of the investigation.

7. The property lawyer MUST now advice the potential buyer whether to buy the property or not. The person conducting the search must also be an INDEPENDENT LAWYER that has no affiliation or ties with the Seller.

8. It would be a terrible idea to use the same Lawyer as the seller because there would be a conflict of interest. If something bad happens to the land, who would the lawyer represent or protect? The Seller or You? undecided

9. Endeavor to always obtain a search receipt from the lawyer after the search fees have been paid. This would guarantee that the Lawyer has an obligation to perform professionally or risk his NBA practicing license.

10. Avoid asking a friend lawyer, co-worker lawyer, or family lawyer to conduct the land verification search on your behalf because, 95% of the time, the results are either always vague, time-consuming, or done sloppily. Most importantly, if something goes wrong, who is to blame?

One more word of caution:

Money is hard to come by these days due to the challenging economy. Owning your own land or home is a need in life, and working hard and being determined to save money to do so is a testament to those qualities.

Avoid ruining everything by making a rash property purchase without first ascertaining the ownership or status of the land or house.

In exchange for a piece of land or a home, you would be writing a stranger the largest check of your life. Don’t hand over your life money to a dishonest real estate company or property seller con artist who convinced you to purchase a doubtful property with fake or forged title documents. Losing your land, home, and money would be too painful, stressful, and horrifying to handle.

Your friends and family would blame you. Your colleagues will pity you in your front and laugh at you at your back. The Jealous ones would be ecstatic that you were suffering, just like they were, and they would thank their village people for making you suffer. When outsiders hear your story, they will use you as an example to verify their next piece of property or home so they won't do something similar.

Police and lawyers would chop you finish when they finally know you have entered their trap and once they've emptied your wallet, you won't even get your money back in full. undecided

The worst part is that the dubious seller would use your hard-earned money to flex, travel around the world, gamble recklessly with your money on nairabet, lavishly spend on girlfriends, marry a new wife, pay for his own children’s school fees, use your money to pay his rent or complete his own house, buy a new car, pay an outstanding loan or debt he is owing, invest your own money in his business or even pop numerous bottles of champagne at clubs or parties.

He would even use your money to post bail at the police station and settle the same police with your own money when you finally get hold of him.

If you act responsibly, use caution, and thoroughly investigate the property you are interested in, you can prevent all this suffering.

Self-help is not recommended since, nine times out of ten, you will overlook something vital and your case file will land up on my desk or at Panti Police Station. If you and your property lawyer follow these rules, I guarantee you buying a property free from wahala, fraud and wayo. -Omonilelawyer.com

04/01/2022

It is two ways.

27/08/2021

NITDA slams N10m fine on Soko Lending Company for data privacy invasion
P.M. News NigeriaAug 17, 2021 12:00 PM
Soko Lending Company fined by NITDA

In first of its type, the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), fined an online lending platform, Soko Lending Company Ltd., (Soko Loans), N10 million for data privacy invasion.


Mrs Hadiza Umar, Head, Corporate Affairs and External Relations of NITDA, said this in a statement on Tuesday in Abuja.

Umar said the action was taken following series of complaints against the company for unauthorised disclosures, failure to protect customers’ personal data, defamation of character and violating the provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR).

According to her, one of such complaints filed by Bloomgate Solicitors on behalf of its client, the data subject, was received on Monday, Nov. 11, 2019, which prompted the agency to investigate the claims.


Umar explained that Soko Loans granted its customers uncollateralised loans which required a loanee to download its mobile application on the phone and activate a direct debit in the company’s favour.

“In such manner, the application gains access to the loanee’s phone contacts,” she said.


According to one of the complainants, when he failed to meet up with his repayment obligations due to insufficient credit in his account on the date the direct debit was to take effect, the company unilaterally sent privacy invading messages to the complainant’s contacts.

She said NITDA’s investigation revealed that the complainants’ contacts who were neither parties to the loan transaction nor consented to the processing of their data had confirmed the receipt of such messages.

The agency also made efforts to get Soko Loan to change the unethical practice but to no avail.

She added that following the investigation, it secured a lien order on one of the company’s accounts by which it could come up with privacy enhancing solutions for its business model.

Umar said instead, Soko Loan decided to rebrand and direct its customers to pay into its other business accounts.


She said: “The agency’s investigation further revealed that the company embeds trackers that share data with third parties inside its mobile application without providing users information about it or using the appropriate lawful basis.

“NITDA has, therefore, found Soko Loan and its entities in violation of use of non-conforming privacy notice, contrary to the content of the NDPR, insufficient lawful basis for processing personal data, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the NDPR.”

It said the company was involved in “illegal data sharing without appropriate lawful basis, contrary to Article 2.2 of the NDPR, unwillingness to cooperate with the Data Protection Authority, contrary to Article 3.1 (1) of Data Protection Implementation Framework and non-filing of NDPR audit reports through a licensed Data Protection Compliance Organisation (DPCO).

“In view of the foregoing and in consideration of its implication on the privacy of Nigerians and erosion of trust in the digital economy, NITDA hereby imposes a monetary sanction of N10 million on Soko Lending Company Ltd.

“NITDA also directs that no further privacy invading messages be sent to any Nigerian until the company and its entities show full compliance with the NDPR.”


She said the agency also directed the company to pay for the conduct of a Data Protection Impact Assessment by a NITDA appointed DPCO on its operation and placement on a mandatory IT and Data Protection oversight for nine months.

Umar clarified that the incriminating aspects of the investigation was deposited with the Nigerian Police to determine if the executives of the company were liable to imprisonment for violating Section 17 of the NITDA Act, 2007.

She, however, reminded all Nigerian businesses and data controllers of their obligation to engage NITDA-licensed DPCO to guide them toward compliance with the data protection law.

Umar reiterated that the agency was committed to fully enforcing the NDPR with the aim of sanitising the operating environment, instilling confidence in the digital economy and protecting the right to data privacy of Nigerians.

She recalled that the agency issued the NDPR as Nigeria’s first comprehensive framework for the protection of personal data.
She said the regulation provided the principles, framework, protection and processing of personal data of Nigerians and residents.

17/08/2021

Let all also take NOTICE of this:
*PILLARS NIG. LTD v WILLIAMS DESBORDES*
_(Suit No SC/105/2010)_

*ISSUE:*
_IRREGULAR NOTICE TO QUIT_

*PRINCIPLE*
Even if the initial notice to quit was irregular, the minute the Writ of Summons dated 13/5/1993 for repossession was served on the Appellant, it served as adequate notice. Equity demands that wherever and whenever there is controversy on when or how notice of forfeiture or notice to quit is disputed by the parties, or even where there is irregularity in giving notice to quit, the filing of an action by the landlord to regain possession of the property has to be sufficient notice on the tenant, that he is required to yield up possession.

Their Lordships clarified that, while statutory notice may be given as the situation requires (whatever form the periodic tenancy is, whether weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly etc.), immediately a Writ is filed to regain possession, the irregularity of the Notice, if any, is cured. Time to give notice, should start to run from the date the Writ is served. If for example, a yearly tenant, six months after the Writ is served and so on. All the dance drama around the issue of the irregularity of the Notice, ends thereby.

26/07/2021

Is it better to help your children when you’re still alive? Or wait until after you die?

15/04/2021

For lawyers and non-lawyers.
By David Oluwasegun Ogundipe

A lawyer of men should know much of life and human nature, he should be a novice in nothing and wide-minded in all things. He may not be a genius, but must be ripe in broad knowledge and general experience. If he is these, and he fails, it will be no fault of his own. J.W Donovan.

A woman in her 60s approached the firm. A "magic" had happened overnight and the magic left her shattered. She wanted to get to the root of it and consultations led her to the firm.

A piece of land was left for her by her late husband in a choice area in Abuja. She aspired so much to build on the land, but she could not afford it. She travelled outside the country for almost a year, returned to Nigeria and decided to go check the piece of land. To her shock, she met a beautiful structure on her land.

She ran around and did her checks. She realised someone had access to the title document, obtained several permits in her name, perfected several statutory documents in her name and even built the house in her name, before it was transferred. Strangely, her consent reflected on every document as required by law, but she couldn't place it all.

She ran to the firm for help. A meeting was held, with our boss and three other lawyers in attendance. We resolved to file a suit. The suit was filed and the matter commenced. It was a tough one for us as documents speak for themselves and whoever ran the job for these guys learnt from Devil himself.

The Defendants did not turn up in Court all along, just their lawyers, but when it was time for them to start calling witnesses, two of them turned up. It was a very interesting proceedings, as they were visibly burnt and hurt by the fire or cross-examination. As young lawyers, we were excited. The woman was more excited.

To my shock, our boss invited the woman for a meeting in the firm. The purpose of the meeting was to advise her to seek out of court settlement and withdraw the suit. "Learned silk, Sir?" The woman said, voice trembling. She continued: "People said you will help me get what belongs to me. I met about 4 senior lawyers who asked me to come to you. I don't have any regret. We are doing well in Court. Why do you want me to start begging on my right? They're criminals. I should even be the one insisting that I won't settle out of Court if they propose it".

When she was done, our boss tapped the table before him several times, almost forcing us to start dancing to the tune. He took turns to look straight into the eyes of the 4 of us at the meeting, including the woman and started:

"War are fought because of a prize. So, every good warrior must devise a strategy that will win him the prize. Many win the war and lose the prize. I have 40 lawyers and among them are some of the best in the country. They like to do law. They want legal battles. To prepare court processes and run to Court. They're not afraid of dragging cases. You also saw what we've done to those guys in Court? We are not losers and my suggestion is not from a place of weakness. But... (he paused, stared so long at the woman and continued) you. I care for you. I am worried about what might happen when you win the case and you're far away from the eyes of the Court. Those guys I saw in Court will kill you! They will kill you (he said, slowly). People who can go to that length to take what belongs to you, went ahead to build on it and still have the gut to turn up in a law court to defend their acts will kill you. If you insist we will win your case, go home, enjoy with our families, but it will be the beginning of a serious war for you. I pushed them to this point so that we are in a position of advantage to negotiate. They will jump at our offer now." The woman was quiet.

Our boss continued: "what's the value of a land in that area? Do you know?" "Yes, SAN. It is about xyz million", she replied. Our boss continued: "Okay, we will add 10 million naira to it and propose the prize for them in the settlement arrangement."

We left the meeting. The settlement process started and spanned for about 3 months. After much protests and all, the Defendants agreed and paid the woman the estimated cost of the land and an extra 10 million naira our boss added. When she proposed to pay a part of it as professional fee, our boss said no. "It is all yours. You can go with it".

I remember this today because I was in a meeting with him and when the client left, he faced me and said: "apart from a very sound knowledge of law, watch your client's back. Some victories will hurt them, know how to tighten the noose and then when to loosen it, in their interest."
I thought I should share this as we learn everyday.

05/03/2021

Rental Property Advice.

While searching for a rental property to reside, never ever accept to reside in a property that the owner/landlord resides. It often ends bad.

18/09/2020

26/08/2020

"No Court of law or Judge has the jurisdiction to enforce an illegal contract. The duty of a Court of law or Judge is to administer justice according to law. Therefore, it will be a breach of that duty and the oath of office to enforce an illegal contract. None of the parties to an illegal contract is entitled to any remedy or relief from a Court of law and once a Court or Judge becomes aware of the illegality, it is the duty of the Court or Judge to stop the case and dismiss the claim for being void and unenforceable."
OCHEDI & ORS. vs. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA & ORS.(2018)LPELR-45316(CA)

ISSUE: ILLEGAL/VOID CONTRACT-Effect of illegality on a transaction or contract

PRINCIPLE:
"Without the need to waste verbiage, it is beyond argument that the suit by the Appellants against the Respondents was/is for the recovery of monies they paid, deposited or invested in a financial transaction, business or scheme that was conducted, operated and carried out in clear violation of statutory provisions. Sections 58(1) and 59 of BOFIA provide that:
"Section 58 of the act provides: -
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of part 1 of this Act, no person shall carry on financial business in Nigeria other than insurance and stock broking except if it is a company duly incorporated in Nigeria and holds a valid licence granted under Section 59 of this Act.
And Section 59 of the Act provides thus:
(1) Any person wishing to carry on other financial business other than insurance and stock broking in Nigeria shall apply in writing to the Bank for the grant of a license.
(2) After the Applicant has provided all such information, documents and reports as the Bank may require under Subsection (1) of this section the Bank may grant the license with or without conditions or refuse to grant the licence. (3) Any person who transacts business without a valid licence under Section 58 of this Act or Subsection (2) of this section, whether in the case of an individual or in the case of a corporate body is guilty of an offence and liable. (a) In the case of a corporate body, to a fine of N1,000,000.00;
(b) In any other case, to a fine not exceeding N1,000,000.00 or inprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both such fine and imprisonment."
Under BOFIA, a person or company is regarded as carrying on or conducting financial business other than insurance and stock broking, if it solicits and accepts money deposits from the public and pays interests thereon, as a business, by whatever name called. Section 1(5)(a) of BOFIA stipulates that -
"if the Person accepts deposit from the general public as a feature of its business or if it issues an advertisement or solicits for such deposition."
Then Section 2(1) of the Act provides that: -
"No person shall carry on any banking business in Nigeria except if it is a company duly incorporated in Nigeria and holds a valid banking license issued under the Act."
Subsection (2) of Section 2 punishes any person who transacts banking business without a valid license under the Act, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten (10) years or two (2) Million Naira fine or both. The monies the Appellants seek to recover from the 1st - 6th Respondents by the facts presented in the Affidavit evidence of the parties, as shown earlier, are in respect of transactions; i.e. financial business of soliciting for and accepting money from the general public as deposits for profit, by a company that did not have a valid license carry on such business, prohibited by the above provisions of BOFIA and so illegal. As was stated by the apex Court in the case of Sodipo v. Lemminkainen (supra) "out of an illegal cause, no action can arise, Exturp causa Oritur non action, illegality, once brought to the attention of the Court, overrides all questions of pleading." In addition, in the case of Fasel Services Limited v. NPA (supra) the apex Court had poignantly held that:- "The position of the law is that where a statute declares a contract or transaction between parties not only void but also imposes a penalty for violation, that contract or transaction is illegal abinitio." For the purpose of and in the eyes of the law, the transaction between the Appellants and Wealth Zone Limited from the beginning, was clearly not only prohibited, but also punished by the law and so illegal, whether the Appellants knew or not as ignorance of the law is no defence or excuse.
Being illegal from the beginning, the transaction between the Appellants and Wealth Zone Limited could not have vested the Appellants any legal right that is cognizable and enforceable by a Court of law. In fact, by dint of the provisions of Section 122 (2)(b) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the lower Court had the duty to take judicial notice of the provisions of all extant statutes in the country, including BOFIA and so whether or not any of the parties raised the issue of non-compliance or contravention of the relevant provisions of the Act, the lower Court could do that suo motu. In the case of Omokuwajo v. FRN (2013) 9 NWLR (1359) 300 @ 332, at was held by the Supreme Court that: -
"The need to give the parties a hearing when a Judge raises an issue on his own motion or suo motu would not be necessary if:
(a) The issue relates to the Court's own jurisdiction;
(b) Both parties are/were not aware or ignored a statute which may have bearing on the case. That is to say where by virtue of statutory provisions, the Judge is expected to take judicial notice under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. (c) When, on the face of the record, serious questions of fairness of the proceedings are evident." See also Olutola v. University of Ilorin (2005) ALL FWLR (245) 1154; Alims v. UBA Plc. (2013) 1 MJSC (Pt.1) 156 @ 170. In the Appellant's case, the issue of the non compliance or contravening of the provisions of BOFIA in respect of the transaction on which the Appellant's suit was predicated was not only raised by the parties, as demonstrated earlier, but was also addressed by them. The Appellants' Counsel, in particular, in the Written Address on Points of Law in Response to the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Respondents dated 8th July, 2013, addressed the issue of the illegality of the transaction giving rise to the Appellants' suit and the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain it. So the case of the Appellants is not one in which the issue was raised suo motu and decided by the lower Court without affording the parties, particular the Counsel for the Appellants, a hearing.
After a reading of the judgment by the lower Court, there is no doubt that the case, facts and issues raised and presented by the parties, especially the counsel for the Appellants, were very clearly, accurately and properly appreciated and dutifully considered, completely by it to rightly conclude that the transactions between the Appellants and Wealth Zone Limited translated and constituted illegal contract, which illegality, is a feature that deprived it of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over the Appellant's suit. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR, 341, (1962) 1 ALL NLR, 587 followed and applied in later well known cases, such as Sken Consult Nig. Ltd. v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC. 6; Ajao v. Alao (1986) NWLR (45) 802;
Okafor v. A.G, Anambra State(1991) 7 SC (Pt.III) 138, (1991) 2 SCNJ, 345, (1991) 6 NWLR (200) 659; SPDCN Ltd. v. Isah (1997) 6 NWLR (505) 236; Araka v. Ejeagwu (2000) 15 NWLR (692) 684." Per GARBA, JCA.(Pp.23-29,Paras.B-A).

OKEKE vs. NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY TEACHING
HOSPITAL(2018)LPELR-43781
(CA)

ISSUE: ILLEGAL/VOID CONTRACT-Whether a party who has benefitted from a contract can resile from his obligation under such contract on the pretext of illegality

PRINCIPLE:
"In Kwajaffa v. BON Nig. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCNJ 121, (2004) LPELR-1727 (SC), (2004) NWLR Pt. 889 Pg. 141, the Appellant entered a mortgage agreement with the title deeds in his son's name. The son was a minor. He sought to declare the agreement a nullity because his son was incapable of executing a contract as a minor. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot resile from his obligations under a contract from which he had benefited because he never followed what the law required.
Let us even assume without conceding that the Respondent is not a juristic person because the Respondent deliberately gave the wrong name to be used in the contract, it is now settled that a party cannot take refuge from his contractual obligations on the pretext of his own illegality, in so far as the other party was not aware of the illegality at the time of the transaction. In the immortal words of Belgore, JSC, (as he then was) at page 143: "Had this appeal succeeded it would have created consequences that will allow fraud to pay. The appellants' case was ab initio based on the illusory nullity caused by their deceit. A Court of law must always be that justice and equity, self induced nullity will not help the appellants."
The most important and relevant ratio in that case pertinent also to this case is that the Respondent never denied the existence of a contract between the parties by their pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal, and their affidavit evidence to strike out the suit at the trial Court and the brief of arguments filed in this Court, neither did the Respondent deny that the Appellant had performed part of the contract between the parties and that the Respondent benefitted from the consultancy services of the Appellant. Their main argument has been that the "body" which contracted with the Appellant is not a juristic person.
In Sosan v. HFP Engineering (Nig.) Ltd. (2004) 3 NWLR Pt. 861 Pg. 546, Onalaja, JCA, went to town on how a Court of equity should deal with this type of situation. His Lordship stated unequivocally at page 573 as follows:- "Apart from the principle of law involved in this case, it is morally despicable for a person who has benefited from an agreement to turn round and say that the agreement is null and void. In pursuance of the principle that law should serve public interest, the Courts have evolved the technique of construction in bonampartem". In Sosan v. HFP Engineering (Nig.) Ltd. (supra), the Appellant after benefitting from a contract, sought to declare the contract void because the Governor's consent was not obtained before the sub-lease agreement was executed by the parties. The contract between the parties was one which would otherwise be unlawful. I am also of the firm view that Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on estoppel is very apt to the circumstances of this case. It states as follows:-
When one person has either by virtue of an existing Court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives in interest shall be allowed in any proceeding between himself and such person or such person's representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing. I cannot agree with the argument of the Respondent's counsel that the Appellant should have joined the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Management Board for the enforcement of his Arbitration award because the Respondent is not a juristic person.
In the circumstances of this case, I have to interpret the contract between the parties as one in bonampartem or bonafide. How was the Appellant to know the minute provisions of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Act, when the Principal officer of the Teaching Hospital namely the Chief Medical Director no less at the time entered a contract with him in the name of the Teaching Hospital simplicita and not in the name of the Board. Bona fide means good faith, that is the standard of conduct expected from a reasonable person especially in making contracts and similar actions, acting without fraudulent intent or malice. It seems to me that the argument put up by the Respondent and accepted by the learned trial Judge that the contract is void because the Respondent as named is not a legal entity smacks of an overt show of bad faith at best.
The interpretation of the contract must be done in such a way that we are bound by equity to ignore a literal interpretation of the name of the Respondent without the phrase "Management Board" and to assume that Teaching Hospital an aphorism of saying Teaching Hospital Management Board which had mobilised the Appellant to commence consultancy services, part paid contract sums and submitted itself to arbitration and even paid arbitration fees, cannot turn around to resile from the contract agreement and the arbitral proceedings it had submitted to and participated in." Per OGUNWUMIJU, JCA.(Pp.18-22,Paras.D-F).