Ojoko & Ojoko: Solicitors, Arbitrators, Notary Public

01/10/2026

Wishing our clients, partners, and all Nigerians a Happy 66th Independence Day.

24/09/2026

Ojoko & Ojoko: Solicitors, Arbitrators, Notary Public

27/08/2026

20/08/2026

The Appellants were tenants of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who decided to sell the property and invited expressions of interest. The Appellants expressed interest, after which the Respondents set out the conditions of sale, including 20% upfront payment, with the balance payable by instalments and delay attracting forfeiture.

The Appellants requested a variation to 10% upfront payment and a more convenient payment plan. Although the request was accepted, they failed to comply with the agreed terms, and the Respondents subsequently offered the property to another buyer.

The Appellants sued, claiming that their expression of interest had created a binding legal relationship. The High Court dismissed the claim, holding that the invitation was merely an invitation to treat. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

The Supreme Court held that the Appellants’ request to vary the terms amounted to a counter-offer, not an acceptance. A counter-offer creates no binding contract unless expressly accepted. Since it was not accepted and the property was sold to another buyer, no valid contract existed between the parties.

11/08/2026

A PURCHASE RECEIPT IS NOT A TITLE DOCUMENT

Having your name on a purchase receipt or proof that you've paid for land does not automatically make you the legal owner.

A receipt is only evidence of payment.

To establish and protect your ownership, you should ensure the transaction is supported by the appropriate legal documents, which may include:
• Deed of Assignment
• Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) (where applicable)
• Registered Survey Plan
• Governor's Consent (where required)
• Any other relevant title documents applicable to the property

Equally important is carrying out proper due diligence before completing any purchase. This helps confirm the seller's title, identifies any encumbrances, and ensures ownership of the property can be legally transferred.

Don't rely on a receipt alone. Secure your ownership with the right legal documentation and sound legal advice.

Adeniji v. Onagoruwa (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 639) 1 (P. 21, para. H)
A purchase receipt is recognised in law as evidence of acknowledgement of purchase price but that by itself does not confer title. It is for the party who relies on a purchase receipt, first to prove the issuance of the receipt and then to prop up his claim to title by other evidence recognised by law, in order to establish his title.

A Purchase receipt can however give rise to an equitable interest in land where it is coupled with effective possession of the land - Provost LACOED v. Edun (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 870) 476 at 498, Paras. B - D (SC).

06/08/2026

SUPREME COURT

Defective Oath No Longer Fatal

The Supreme Court has clarified that defects or irregularities in the swearing of witness statements on oath no longer automatically render such evidence inadmissible. Once a witness is properly sworn in court, adopts the statement as evidence-in-chief, and undergoes cross-examination, any prior defect is cured.

Key Holding
In Katagum v. Umar (2026) 8 NWLR (Pt. 2046) 457, the Court held that irregularities in administering an oath before making a witness statement are merely procedural. Such irregularities only affect proceedings if they cause a miscarriage of justice. Even an unsworn statement becomes competent once adopted under oath in open court.

Practical Implication
Technical objections based on defective oaths are now largely ineffective. The decisive factor is whether the witness ultimately testifies under oath and is cross-examined. Absent any miscarriage of justice, such irregularities will not invalidate the evidence.

Departure from Earlier Authority
This marks a shift from Nammagi v. Akote (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1762) 170, where unsworn statements were deemed incompetent. The Court now prioritizes substantial justice over procedural technicalities, ensuring cases are decided on their merits rather than curable defects.