LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PROPERTY LAW – Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Application to Unauthorised Pledge
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
If the agent lacked authority to pledge the Land Certificate, the purported pledge was legally an exercise in futility because he had nothing to pledge, and could never defeat the right of the true owner.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC, in Labode v. Otubu & Anor (2001) NLC-1721995(SC) at p. 33; Paras A–B.
"If Mr. Fadipe lacked authority to pledge the Land Certificate, the purported pledge of same to the defendants was legally an exercise in futility because he (Mr. Fadipe) had nothing to pledge, and so could never defeat the right of the plaintiff, the undisputed real owner of the Land Certificate."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The maxim nemo dat quod non habet (no one gives what they do not have) applies to unauthorised pledges. An agent lacking authority to pledge a document or chattel has nothing to transfer. The purported pledge is a nullity—it cannot defeat the true owner’s rights. The transferee (pawnee) acquires no title or interest. The true owner’s title remains paramount. The transferee’s remedy, if any, is against the agent for breach of warranty of authority. The principle protects owners from unauthorised dealings by agents or bailees. The transferee bears the risk of ascertaining the pledgor’s authority. The true owner is not estopped from asserting their rights.
