In its legal sense, "a trust" is the relationship, which arises wherever a person called the trustee is compelled in equity to hold property, whether real or personal, and whether by legal or equitable title, for the benefit of some persons (of whom he may be one and who are termed cestuis que trust) or for some object permitted by law, in such a way that the real benefit of the property accrues, not to the trustee but, to the beneficiaries or other object of the trust – Professor Keeton in Law of Trust, 9th Ed.
To this end, there are Express Trusts, Implied or Resulting Trusts and Constructive Trusts. Express Trusts arise when the owner declares himself a trustee of the property for the benefit of another person or vests property in another person as trustee for the benefit of another person. Implied or Resulting Trust arise from the presumed intention of the owner, and the presumed intention arises by operation of law not by agreement of parties
Constructive Trusts are trusts imposed by equity regardless of the intention of the owner of the property, where it will be unconscionable for the "apparent beneficial owner" or trustee to hold the property for his benefit- seeEquity and Trust in Nigeria 2nd Ed. by J. O. Fabunmi. We are concerned with implied or resulting trusts, which may arise in the following circumstances –
(i) Where an express trusts fails
(ii) Where the beneficial interest under an express trust is not fully disposed of or exhausted.
(iii) Where there is a purchase in the name of another or where a person makes a voluntary conveyance of his property to another.
A constructive or implied trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstance that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee. See Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. 122 N.E 378, Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edition, Page 1513. In Kotoye v Saraki (1992) NWLR (Pt. 264) 156, (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 26, this Court held that constructive trust, as in this case, imposed by equity on the ground of conscience and is not based on the prior presumed intention of the parties. See Ughtevbe v Shonowo (supra); Ibekwe v Nwosu (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1251) 1 at 5 Paragraphs A-C.
An implied trust founded upon the unexpressed intention of the settlor and same is raised and created by implication of law from the surrounding circumstances of the case. It does not require agreement between the settlor and trustee. See Adekeye v Akin Olugbade (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 214 at 227; Kotoye v Saraki (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 357) 414 at 443 Paragraph H. Constructive trust is neither granted nor accepted, but it is foisted upon the parties by the operation of law.
What is more, equity does impose a constructive trust where necessary to satisfy the demand of justice and eminence without reference to any express or presumed intention of parts [see SOAB v ASHWELL (1893)2 O.B. 390; Re Franklyn, Franklyn v Franklyn (1950)30 TLR. 187] And so, where a person not expressly a trustee traffics with money belonging to another, the law raise a trust by implication and clothes that person with fiduciary character for the purpose of making him accountable.
From those three grounds of appeal, the Appellant distilled the single issue which posed the question whether without a contractual relationship between Appellant and now only respondent, there cannot be a cause of action even if the claim is made in equity for money had and received and for money held in constructive trust. The Appellant had sought refuge in the case of this Court per Iguh JSC in Alfotrin Ltd V. A.G.Federation (1996) 9 NWLR (pt.475) 634 where the learned Jurist stated thus at page 659:-
"The law is settled that where a plaintiff can prove the rendering of services under an unenforceable contract, the contract is admissible as evidence of the value of the services rendered and he may recover on a quantum meruit basis. Put differently, where work is done or services are rendered by the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant and of which the Defendant has had the benefit, the plaintiff can recover the value of the work or services rendered on a quantum meruit. The law provides remedies for cases of unjust enrichment and thus to prevent one from retaining some benefit derived from another which it is unconscionable that he should keep. Such remedies, strictly speaking are different from remedies in contract or tort and are recognized to fall within the common law remedy of quasi contract".