SALE IN MARKET OVERT - A LEGAL CONSIDERATION OF EMERGING ISSUES ON STOLEN GOODS IN NIGERIA

Sep 17, 2026

Market overt is an open and public market recognized by law, raising the question whether purchases in such venues provide adequate legal protection for the transfer of property to the buyer. This work examines the continued relevance of the market overt rule as an exception to the nemo dat quod non habet principle in modern Nigerian commercial realities. Using doctrinal research, it evaluates the rule’s operation to protect consumers and proposes expanding the exception beyond narrowly restricted premises.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

1. Introduction

2. The Market Overt Exception

SALE IN MARKET OVERT: A LEGAL CONSIDERATION OF EMERGING ISSUES ON STOLEN GOODS IN NIGERIA* Abstract Market overt is an open and public market recognized by law. Where a purchaser buys goods from a seller, is he given adequate legal coverage for the transfer of the property in the goods which are the subject matter of the sale? Is the fact that the said goods were purchased in a place other than a legally recognized open market and theseller is lacking in title of any moment? Commerce as we have and know it has moved beyond regular markets. This work utilized the doctrinal method of research and probed the continued relevance of the market overt rule in its extant form as an exception to the nemo dat quod non habet principle. In a bid to enhance consumers’ and buyers’ interests in commercial transactions, this work explored the market overt rule vis-a-vis modern realities. It suggested that the restrictive toga of market overt be shed and the exception be expanded to cover other business premises and entities. Keywords: Market overt, nemo dat quod non habet, bona fides and consumer protection. 1. Introduction The principal legislation governing sale of goods transactions in Nigeria is the Sale of Goods Act, 1893-a state of general application.1 This long standing colonial enactment has been adopted and its contents largely retained by majority of the federating units of Nigeria, except for minor and mainly unappreciable and inconsequential alterations by these States. The Act applies in States in Nigeria that have not domesticated the federal law. This 19thcentury law can best be described as a piece of legal anachronism with a plethora of provisions that can be said to have outlived their usefulness and are no longer in tune with modern realities. The dictates of contemporary business have rendered most of its provisions obsolete, worn out, lacking in relevance and antiquated. In reality, it is not in all cases that a seller of goods sells goods that he possesses the title to such goods or sells with the express or implied authority of the original owner. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet is one that has held sway/forte in jurisprudence all over the world. It is a general principle, and like other legal principles, it admits of exceptions. It is to the effect that a person cannot give a better title than he has. That is to say that one cannot give that which he does not have. The idea principally is to protect the interest of the original owner of such goods from the scheming of unscrupulous sellers. It favours the owner and protects his right of ownership of such goods. The fulcrum of every sale of goods is the passage of property from the seller to the purchaser. Even in the face of bonafides, where a person who buys goods from a seller when the property in the goods does not reside in the said seller, the purported purchaser has bought nothing as the ownership of such goods cannot validly pass to the purchaser. The market overt exception was meant to operate as a lifeline to innocent buyers. It therefore follows that any sale wherein there is no valid or actual transfer of property in the goods from the former to the latter is incomplete and cannot be termed sale of goods in the real sense of it. There are circumstances under which a person who neither has property in the goods nor the authority (express or implied) of the owner of such goods can validly pass on property in the goods to a purchaser. Amongst quite a number of exceptions to the rule is the long standing principle of sale in a market overt. Other exceptions to this general rule: are sale under agency; sale by a person having a voidable title; estoppels; sale by a seller in possession; sale by a buyer in possession; sale by a mercantile agent; sale under common law power; sale under statutory powers; sale by virtue of the Bankruptcy Act and sale under order of court.2 An innocent purchaser, faced with a claim for a return of the goods from

FAQs

What legal issue does the work address regarding market overt purchases?

It addresses whether buyers who purchase goods from sellers in a legally recognized open market receive adequate legal coverage for the transfer of property in those goods.

How does the nemo dat quod non habet principle relate to market overt?

The nemo dat principle bars a person from giving a better title than they have, while market overt operates as an exception that can protect certain innocent purchasers.

Why does the work suggest expanding the market overt exception?

To better enhance consumer and buyer interests in modern commercial transactions by shedding the restrictive scope of the traditional market overt rule and covering other business premises and entities.

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Emma Wilson