PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Specific performance cannot be ordered against a vendor who agreed to sell property he does not own; the court does not compel a person to do what is impossible.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Mohammed v. Klargester Nigeria Ltd (2002) NLC-1141995(SC) at pp. 13; Paras D–E.
"Specific performance cannot be ordered against a person who has agreed to sell land/house which he does not own and the co-heirs cannot be compelled to convey to him because the court does not compel a person to do what is impossible."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels performance of a contract. It cannot be ordered against a vendor who does not own the property. The court will not compel a person to do what is impossible. The vendor cannot convey title they do not have. The co-owners cannot be compelled to convey. The purchaser’s remedy is damages against the vendor for breach of contract. The principle applies the equitable maxim that equity does not act in vain. The court will not grant specific performance where it would be futile. The rule protects vendors from being compelled to perform impossible obligations. The purchaser must verify the vendor’s title before seeking specific performance.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE