and by means of his pur- chase deed, some legal estate, some legal right, some legal advantage; and, according to my view of the established law of this court, such a purchaser's plea of a purchase for valuable consideration without notice is an absolute, unqualified, unanswerable defence, and an unanswerable plea to the jurisdiction of this court. Such a purchaser, when he has once put in that plea, may be interrogated and tested to any extent as to the valuable considera- tion which he has given in order to show the bona fide or mala fides of his purchaser, and also, the presence or absence of notice; but when once he has gone through that ordeal, and has satisfied the terms of the plea of purchase for valuable consideration without no- tice, then, according to my judgement, this court has no jurisdiction whatever to do any- thing more than to let him depart in possession of that legal estate, that legal right, that le- gal advantage which he has obtained, whatever it may be. In such a case a purchaser is en- titled to hold that which, without breach of duty, he has had conveyed to him.” In Folashade v. Duroshola (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 87, the Federal Supreme Court reiterated that where an estate is affected by an equitable interest, a subsequent purchaser for value will not be affected by that equitable interest provided he obtained the legal estate, he gave value for the property and he had no notice of the equitable interest at the time (when) he gave his considera- tion. See further Cole v. Folami (1956) 1 F.S.C. 16; Griffin v. Talabi (1948) 12 W.A.C.A. 370; Okunubi v. Assaf (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 226. The fact that a purchaser had the legal estate conveyed to him is not sufficient to give him priori- ty. In equity, the claim of the prior equitable owner would be