to a purchaser in a subsequent transaction. A solicitor is not under any duty to communicate his knowledge in a previous transaction to the purchaser when the latter subsequently becomes his client. However, when the same solicitor acts for both parties to a transaction, any notice he acquires is imputed to both parties, unless there are facts disclosing that he has conspired with one to the detriment and disadvantage of the other, in which case, that other will have the protection of the doctrine of bona fide purchaser without notice. See Sharpe v. Foy (1868) 4 Ch. App. 35. In Ohiaeri v. Yussuf & Ors. (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) p. 207, the Court held that: “It is only a subsequent bonafide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice that can take priority over someone who had acquired a prior equitable interest over the property. And “without notice” means that the purchaser must have no notice of the existence of the equitable interest, that is, he must have neither actual notice nor constructive notice nor imputed notice. If the purchaser employs an agent such as a solicitor, any actual or constructive notice which the agent receives is imputed to the purchaser. In the instant case, there was uncontroverted evidence that the same solicitor who brought the 2nd and 3rd respondents together and facilitated the sale of the property to the 2nd respondent was also the agent of the appellant and facilitated the conveyance of the property by the 3rd and 4th respondents to the appellant. Therefore the notice, actual or constructive, of the prior equitable interest by the solicitor was imputed to the appellant. The appellant could not claim protection under the doctrine of innocent purchaser for value without notice.” The equitable doctrine of notice was evolved to