To whom does a property belong if the registered owner is fictional?
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was faced with a case where both parties claimed to be the owners of a property.
Facts:
This case centred around the identity and existence of the true proprietor of a London Property, ‘Tali Shani’, following the transfer of that property to the respondent in 2021.
An objection to the transfer was lodged by "Ms. Tali Shani," who claimed to be the genuine 1993 purchaser and owner of the property. She asserted that the respondent, Chief Mike Ozekhome, was attempting to steal her property. Her case was supported by Mr.
Ayodele Damola (the alleged son) and Mr. Anukwe Obasi (alleged cousin). Despite multiple court orders, the applicant never appeared to give evidence, with her representatives initially claiming a chest infection, then later stating she was undergoing treatment for leukaemia. The applicant was subsequently claimed to have died in a car accident while travelling to Abuja.
The respondent, a Nigerian Senior Advocate, applied to register the property based on a 2021 transfer executed in his favour by "Mr. Tali Shani". His case was that "Ms. Shani" was, in fact, a fictional person created to defraud him. His witness, Mr. Tali Shani, claimed he transferred the property to the respondent in 2021 as a "gift out of gratitude" for legal services provided to him.
Mr. Akeem Johnson (property agent) testified that he managed the property between 2011 and 2019, receiving instructions from and paying rent to General Jeremiah Useni. Johnson also confirmed Useni was named as the landlord on tenancy agreements and a 2019 Section 21 "no-fault" eviction notice.
Decision:
The outcome of this case was that both parties failed, and the Tribunal directed the Chief Land Registrar to cancel the respondent's application to register the property. The Tribunal reached this outcome by finding that the applicant's case was indeed a fraud and the respondent's application for registration was void.
The Tribunal found that the applicant, "Ms. Tali Shani," was a fictitious person and that her case was an abuse of process. Despite striking out the applicant's case, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to examine the merits of the respondent's application. The Court found that the transfer was void because the seller, Mr. Tali Shani, had no title to sell. The evidence thus pointed to General Useni as the true owner, as he controlled the rental income. The Court found that Mr. Tali Shani was merely a "vehicle or conduit" used by General Useni to transfer the property to the respondent (likely to settle a debt or favour). Since he was not the 1993 purchaser, he had no title to convey.
Implications:
This ruling strongly reinforces the principle that a person cannot transfer a title to property they do not legitimately own. This safeguards the integrity of the Land Register against transfers based on fabricated ownership. The case reinforces the difficulty of transferring a title that originates from fraudulent activity.
It highlights that UK courts can and will look behind the registered proprietor's name to determine true ownership, especially where there are strong indicators that the asset was purchased using an alias or by a political figure potentially involved in corruption.
The fact that the property remains registered in a fraudulent name ("Tali Shani") underscores that judicial intervention can freeze an asset's status without immediately correcting the register, leaving the legal title uncertain until the deceased's true owner's estate (General Useni) seeks resolution.
