CUSTOMARY LAW — Family Land — Alienation of Family Property — Misrepresentation — Void vs Voidable
Principle Statement
The Yeosa family having conveyed the property in 1964 for valuable consideration cannot turn round in 1972 to impugn its own earlier sale so as to justify a later sale. Specifically, Chief Sanni Bakare, Tijani Ladele and Salawu Alade (DW4) who participated in the earlier sale in Exhibit 'P4' should be estopped from raising the issue of misrepresentation so as to justify their sale of the property a second time in Exhibit D2. Such an act if allowed will make mockery of and defeat the very ends of justice.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tabai, JSC, in Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) NLC-123-47-2003(SC) at p. 17; Paras A–C.
"The Yeosa family having conveyed the property in 1964 for valuable consideration cannot turn round in 1972 to impugn its own earlier sale so as to justify a later sale. Specifically, Chief Sanni Bakare, Tijani Ladele and Salawu Alade (DW4) who participated in the earlier sale in Exhibit 'P4' should be estopped from raising the issue of misrepresentation so as to justify their sale of the property a second time in Exhibit D2. Such an act if allowed will make mockery of and defeat the very ends of justice."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a family that has conveyed property for valuable consideration cannot later impugn its own sale to justify a second sale. Parties who participated in the earlier sale are estopped from raising misrepresentation to justify a later sale. The principle applies in customary land disputes involving family property. It ensures that parties cannot profit from their own inconsistency. The principle reflects the doctrine of estoppel. It prevents a party from challenging their own prior acts. The court must prevent such conduct to avoid injustice. The principle provides guidance on the consequences of inconsistent conduct.
