LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Proof of Title — Registration of Instrument Not a Cure for Absence of Ministerial Consent
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Registration of an instrument does not cure the defect arising from the absence of ministerial approval or consent; the party relying on the transaction has the burden to prove that approval was obtained.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Rockonoh Property Co. Ltd v. Nigerian Telecommunications Plc (2001) NLC-711995(SC) at pp. 22–23; Paras D–A.
"The absence of the necessary ministerial approval or consent is a serious defect which affects the title sought to be conferred by the relevant instrument. It seems to me that if there is no evidence or ground upon which a presumption can be raised that such approval or consent had been obtained, the party whose reliance on the validity of a relevant transaction depends on that approval or consent has the burden to prove that it was obtained. It is not helpful to rely on the fact that the instrument evidencing the transaction was registered because registration does not cure the defect arising from the absence of the ministerial approval or consent, or indeed any defect in any instrument."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Ministerial approval or consent is a condition precedent for certain transactions involving statutory corporations. Registration of an instrument does not cure the absence of such approval. The party relying on the validity of the transaction must prove that approval was obtained. The registrar cannot confer validity where none exists. The principle applies to transactions requiring government or ministerial consent. Registration is merely a matter of record; it does not validate an otherwise void transaction. The burden of proving approval lies on the party asserting validity. The court will not presume approval from registration alone. The rule protects against invalid transactions being given effect through mere registration.