Land conveyance is required to be in writing. The reason being ableness to point finger to piece of written document as an evidence of transactions relating to land after a long period of time. Thus, even though lease of land may be created orally, in writing or deed. A lease longer than a period of three years must be in writing. This position is seen in Statute of Fraud section 3 which provides
" leases among other things relating to real estate in land must be by deed or in writing"
The Real Property act section 3 also provides that
"A lease required by law to be in writing...shall be void by law unless made by deed"
The question that seems to arise if only a lease longer than a period of three years is allowed to be in writing is; If lease created for a period of one year is subject to renewal which will last for the period of 5 years should such a lease be in writing or not? For the sake of this article the question will not be answered or See Hand v Hall.

Overtime, people use failure to put land agreement into writing as an excuse to enforce the agreement even though an enforceable agreement has been reached. For example, what will be the position of Law in a transaction which has been put into writing but one of the parties fail to sign the document because of his selfish interest. If the court fail to enforce the agreement, it will be against equity good conscience and natural justice. The main reason why common law mandated land agreement to be in writing is to prevent fraud. If "fraud" which is said to be curb, will have to see the light of the day during implentation of the writing requirement then the court have to take a look at doctrine of equity. The equitable remedy for the "Writing requirements" is called the doctrine of Part performance
It can be explained as, if a perticular tenant has paid for the rent and had stayed in the house for some time with the consent or acquiescence of the Landlord the fact that the lease is not in writing will be quashed by the court of law. Lord Reid held
" You take the whole circumstance leaving aside evidence about the oral contract, to see whether it is proved that the acts relied on were done in reliance on a contract that will be proved if it is shown to be more probable or not"
The learned justice also continue saying
" ...You must not first look at the oral contract and then see whether the alleged acts of part performance are consistent with It. You must first look at the alleged acts of part performance to see whether they prove that there must have been a contract and it's only if they do so that you can bring in the oral contract".
The practiced of part performance by court of law has be subject to great scrutiny by the court of Law tho onus lies on the lawyer to defend his client with arguable argument.


Visit
http://www.propertylover.com.ng/2018/11/wayout-when-land-agreement-is-not-in.html


OLALEYE BOLAJI
( 08149512306)