LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW — Registration of Instruments — Presumption from Registration — Requirement of Evidence of Consent
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The mere registration of an instrument that does not have the necessary consent endorsed on it does not raise a presumption that the registrar was satisfied that consent had been given; there must be some evidence in support of such a presumption.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Rockonoh Property Co. Ltd v. Nigerian Telecommunications Plc (2001) NLC-711995(SC) at pp. 19–20; Paras E–A.
"The mere fact that an instrument which does not have the necessary consent endorsed on it was registered will not ipso facto, in my respectful opinion, raise the presumption that the registrar was satisfied that such consent had been given which led him to register the instrument. Nor is it right to accept that the mere registration of such instrument raises the presumption of regularity to the effect that the consent was given. There must be some evidence in support of any of such presumptions."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Registration of an instrument does not automatically raise a presumption that ministerial consent was obtained. The presumption of regularity (omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta) does not apply to fill the gap of missing consent. The party relying on the validity of the transaction must adduce evidence that consent was actually given. The registrar’s act of registration does not cure the defect. The principle prevents parties from circumventing statutory requirements by relying on registration alone. The burden of proving consent remains on the party asserting validity. The court will not presume consent from registration. The rule applies to all transactions requiring prior governmental or ministerial approval.