LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PROPERTY LAW – Transfer of Title – Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Vendor Without Title Cannot Convey Title
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet is, in my view, apposite in this respect... the appellant's vendor (PW5) acquired no title or interest whatsoever in respect of the land in dispute which he could convey to the appellant.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Ojo v. Azama (2001) NLC-1221995(SC) at p. 12; Paras A–C.
"The latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet is, in my view, apposite in this respect... the appellant's vendor (PW5) acquired no title or interest whatsoever in respect of the land in dispute which he could convey to the appellant."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The maxim nemo dat quod non habet (no one gives what they do not have) governs derivative title. A vendor who has no title or interest cannot convey valid title to a purchaser. The purchaser acquires no better title than the vendor had. The maxim protects true owners from unauthorised transfers. The burden is on the purchaser to prove the vendor’s title. If the vendor’s title is defective, the purchaser’s title is also defective. The maxim applies to all property transfers—land, goods, and chattels. Exceptions exist (e.g., bona fide purchase for value without notice under certain statutes, estoppel). The principle prevents trafficking in stolen or illegally acquired property. The court will not assist a purchaser from a non-owner.
