The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reaffirmed the settled legal position that a purchaser of land who makes part payment of the purchase price but defaults in paying the balance does not acquire valid title to the property, even where the purchaser is already in physical possession of the land holding that such possession is incapable of defeating the vendor’s title.
The pronouncement was made by Justice Abubakar, JSC, in the case of Mustapha v. Abubakar (2026) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2043) 541 SC, where the apex court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash a trial court order for specific performance that had been granted in favour of a defaulting purchaser.
The ruling settles with finality a question that has generated recurring litigation in Nigerian courts: whether a buyer who has taken possession of land and made partial payment can use that possession and part payment to compel the seller to transfer title, or whether the seller retains the superior claim to the property when the buyer fails to honour the agreed payment schedule.
The case arose from a land transaction in which the appellant (purchaser) entered into an agreement to buy land from the respondent (vendor). The purchaser made a part payment of the purchase price and took possession of the property. However, the purchaser failed to pay the balance of the purchase price within the one-week period agreed upon by both parties.
Even after the vendor granted an extension of time and made repeated demands for payment, the purchaser still failed to complete the transaction by paying the outstanding balance. The vendor, having exhausted patience with the defaulting buyer, contested the validity of the purported sale.
The matter went to the trial court, which granted an order for specific performance effectively ordering the vendor to complete the sale and transfer title to the purchaser despite the purchaser’s default in payment. The vendor appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the trial court’s order. The purchaser then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Justice Abubakar, JSC, delivering judgment at pages 568 to 569 of the report, resolved the issue against the appellant (purchaser) and in favour of the respondent (vendor), holding:
“The law is settled that where a purchaser of land makes part payment of the purchase price, but defaults in paying the balance, there can be no valid sale even where the purchaser is in possession. Such possession is incapable of defeating the vendor’s title.”
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in Odusoga v. Ricketts (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 1, which had established the same principle that possession by a defaulting purchaser does not override the vendor’s title to the property.
Applying the law to the specific facts, Justice Abubakar held: “In the instant case, the purchaser, that is the appellant, had failed to pay the balance of the purchase price at the expiration of the one week agreed upon by her and after extension of time and repeated demands for payment by the respondent. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were therefore justified when they quashed the trial court’s order for specific performance.”
The Supreme Court accordingly resolved the issue against the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
The Mustapha v. Abubakar decision reinforces several interrelated principles of Nigerian land law that are of critical importance to buyers, sellers, legal practitioners, and the courts.
First, part payment does not complete a sale. Under Nigerian land law, a contract to buy land is only a preliminary step towards the transfer of title. The sale is not complete and legal title does not pass to the buyer until the full purchase price has been paid and the proper conveyancing steps have been taken. A buyer who has made only partial payment has, at most, an equitable interest in the property, not legal title.
Second, possession does not equal ownership. Physical occupation of land by a buyer who has not completed payment does not confer ownership or defeat the vendor’s title. The Supreme Court was emphatic that “such possession is incapable of defeating the vendor’s title.” This means that a buyer who moves onto land, develops it, or occupies it for any period does not acquire title merely by virtue of being in possession if the underlying transaction remains incomplete due to non-payment of the balance.
Third, default in payment constitutes breach. Where a purchaser fails to complete payment of the purchase price within the agreed time or within any extended time granted by the vendor the vendor can treat the default as a repudiation of the contract. The vendor’s options in such a situation include claiming damages for breach of contract, seeking to retain the property, or in appropriate cases, seeking specific performance. However, the court noted that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, and there are situations where the court will decline to exercise its discretion in favour of a decree of specific performance even where the contract is of a type for which the remedy would ordinarily be appropriate.
Fourth, specific performance is not automatic. The trial court’s decision to grant specific performance in favour of a defaulting purchaser was found to be wrong in law. The Court of Appeal was justified in quashing that order, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. A buyer who has himself breached the contract by failing to pay the agreed price cannot ordinarily turn to the court to compel the seller to perform the seller’s own obligations under the same contract. The equitable maxim that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” applies — a party seeking the equitable remedy of specific performance must demonstrate that they have fulfilled their own obligations under the agreement.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Mustapha v. Abubakar is consistent with its earlier pronouncement in Florence Achonu v. Oladipo Okuwobi (2017) LPELR-42102(SC); (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142, where the apex court addressed the critical issue of a purchaser’s inability to fulfil payment obligations.
In Achonu v. Okuwobi, the court emphasised the legal implications of a buyer’s failure to complete payment, exploring the responsibilities of both the buyer and the seller within the context of the transaction. The court underscored the importance of timely payment under contractual agreements and outlined the consequences that arise when a purchaser fails to meet financial commitments as stipulated in the contract.
The position articulated in Achonu v. Okuwobi was that if a purchaser fails to complete payment of the purchase price, the vendor can treat that failure as a repudiation and claim damages for breach of contract, or alternatively, the vendor may seek specific performance. However, the court noted that there are situations in which the discretion of the court is unlikely to be exercised in favour of a decree of specific performance, even where the contract is of a type for which the remedy would ordinarily be appropriate.
The Mustapha v. Abubakar decision thus represents a continuation and reaffirmation of the Achonu v. Okuwobi line of authority, providing further judicial clarity on a question that continues to generate disputes across Nigeria’s trial and appellate courts.
SEE Full Details ➜