Opatola Victor Esq
A WhatsApp message is currently making rounds on the invalidity of any document or property bought jointly by husband and wife; a number of people have reached out to ask me of the fate of their Legal documents, agreements and properties bought jointly with their spouse as Mr and Mrs.
You should know the following:
1. *Any document issued as Mr. and Mrs Opatola is never invalid.*
2. *It can never be invalid*
3. *No Court held that such document is invalid*
What the Court only said was you cannot sue as Mr. and Mrs Opatola.
For you to be able to sue, the document should be drafted as
1. Mr. Opatola Victor
2. Mrs Opatola Victoria; or
1. Opatola Victor and
2. Mrs Opatola Victoria; or
Mr. Opatola Victor and Mrs. Opatola Victoria
How can making an agreement or document as “Mr and Mrs Opatola’ invalidate the document or the agreement?
The issue of the validity or invalidity of the document cannot even come in issue because the issue here is that of the right party to sue and not the validity of the document.
The question is:
Whether or not having a property registered as Mr. and Mrs. Opatola renders the purchased property invalid or renders the present or future sale of such property invalid.
It does neither of both.
Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy.
Law of equity will forbid the instrumentality of the Law to be used to perpetrate fraud.
Using Mr. and Mrs Opatola in your document means you can not sue to enforce the contract or document using the name Mr. and Mrs Opatola.
Nothwistanding that the name written on the document is Mr. and Mrs Opatola, they can sue as Mr. Victor Opatola
Mrs. Victoria Opatola.
Equity looks at the intent and not the form.
In interpreting a document the Supreme Court has always laid down the rule that the intent of such document is what the Court will look at.
“Where there are lapses in the preparation of a deed, the court can from the available circumstances gather what was intended in the deed. This is because equity has regard for the intent, not the form and equity regards that as done which ought to have been done. In effect, the court can regard the words which the deed is supposed to contain as having been inserted in the deed. ”
Per Nsofor in
Ejigini v. Ezenwa (part 846) P. 437, paras. D-F
Looking at the document, can it be said that both the Mr. and Mrs Opatola intended that both of them are the parties selling or buying the property jointly together?
The Court will answer in the affirmative.
Equity looks as done that which ought to be done, once the legal obligation has been fulfilled.
Equity looks to the intent, rather than to the form, and Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation. Equity also concerns itself with standards of conscience, fairness and equality. It does not aid the indolent, neither will it aid the fraudulent. It protects relationships of trust and confidence, and grants to the court discretionary approach to the grant of the relief where justice demands it.
The Court of equity will not allow itself to be used as an instrument to perpetrate fraud or injustice.
