IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN BENJAMIN vs. KALIO (2018) 15 NWLR (PT. 1641).

In a unanimous decision, a full panel of the Supreme Court in MOSES BENJAMIN & ORS. vs. KALIO & KALIO jettisoned the requirement of registration as a precondition for the admissibility of land documents in evidence. It held that as far as they are properly pleaded, land documents are admissible as proof of title.
In it's lead judgment delivered by EKO, JSC, the Supreme Court had course to review the provisions of Section 20 of the Rivers State Land Instruments Law, Sections 4(3), and 5, and Item 23 of the 1999 Constitution. It also considered its previous decisions in OGBIMI vs. NIGER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, OJUGBELE vs. OLASOJI, AKINTOLA & ANOR. vs. SOLANO, EDOKPOLO & CO. LTD. vs. OHENHEN, which had earlier affirmed the provision of the Land Instruments Law and held that an unregistered registrable instrument cannot be pleaded.
The Court came to the conclusion that in view of the inclusion of Evidence in the Exclusive Legislative List, Section 20 of the State Law is an act of legislative trespass into the exclusive legislative terrain. A document that is pleaded and admissible under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered unpleaded and inadmissible by the State Law.
Consequently, unregistered land documents are admissible even as proof of title.
The implications of the decision are:
1. Objections based on non-registration of registrable instruments can no longer be entertained in a court of law;
2. Decisions of the lower courts which run contrary to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this issue will be overturned on appeal.