Bamidele Kolawole

By virtue of the provisions of the Land Use Act, the radical title of all land in the state is vested in the governor of the state. What this implies is that the governor holds the land in trust for the benefits of the people. 

Benjamin Salami Esq

Firstly, it must be noted that the Land Use Act vest all land in the territory of each State solely in the Governor of the State, who would hold such land in trust for the people and would henceforth be responsible for allocation of land to individuals resident in the State for residential, agriculture, commercial and other purposes.

Secondly, S. 43 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to own property by stating that “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every citizen of Nigeria shall have the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria’’.

Indubitably, the fundamental rights, has provided for in Chapter 4 of the Constitution are not absolute, there are exceptions to how and when these rights can be infringed and suspended. 

Thus, S. 44 which follows immediately after S. 43 of the 1999 Constitution provides that “No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that, among other things -(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore and (b) gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.”

It must be noted that the constitution expressly provides that a compulsory accusations can only be made in the manner and for the purposes provided by law and it further states that such acquisition should be promptly compensated for. 

Also, S. 44(3) is noteworthy, as it put the control of all mineral, oil and natural gas in Nigeria and the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone of Nigeria in the government of the federation and that it shall be managed in such a manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly. 

The combined reading of the above Sections is to the effect that there is right to own property but same is subject to the express provisions of S.44 which provides for grounds upon which the Government can revoke the right of occupancy for overriding public interest subject to payment of compensation.

 Also, S. 28 of the Land Use Act further empowers the Governor of State to revoke private rights over land for overriding public interest.For the determination of the quantum of compensation payable to persons whose rights were compulsorily acquired, section 2(2) of the Land Use Act, created an advisory body known as Land Use Allocation Committee charged with the responsibility of advising the Governor in such matters. 

It must be noted that the government can only acquire individuals’ land compulsorily upon the payment of compensations and when such acquisition is for public purpose. 

Where any individual finds the acquisition of his land to be unlawful, illegal or unjustifiable, such an person can successfully seek remedies from a competent court of law to challenge the acquisition or demand adequate compensation where the compensation paid is unreasonable inadequate.

In Nig. Eng. Works Ltd. V. Denap Ltd & Anor, the Supreme Court held “that the powers of the Governor to revoke any right of occupancy must be exercised in the overriding interest of the public and more importantly, the holder of the right of occupancy if revoked must be notified in advance”. 

Awojobi Adetoro Esq

It is trite that governor has right to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest.

In the case of PROMASIDOR (NIG) LTD v. AMSALCO INDUSTRY LTD & ANOR (2021) LPELR-56420(CA), the Court of Appeal on the guiding principles on the exercise of power of Governor to revoke right of occupancy held thus:

“In matters pertaining to the revocation of land, before a right of occupancy can be revoked and such revocation deemed effective, there are mandatory steps to be taken in order to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 28(1), (2) (6) and (7), and 44 of the Land Use Act to effectuate the proper revocation of the title to a disputed property. 

The relevant provisions of Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act are herein below reproduced, that is – 28.(1) It shall be lawful for the Governor to revoke a right of Occupancy for overriding public interest. (2) Overriding public interest in the case of a Statutory Right of Occupancy means – (a) – (b) the requirement of the land by the Government of the State or by a Local Government in the State, or the requirement of the land by the Government of the Federation for public purposes. (c) – (4) The Governor shall revoke a right of Occupancy in the event of the issue of a notice by or behalf of the President if such Notice declares such land to be required by the Government for public purposes. (5) – (6) The revocation of a right of Occupancy shall be signified under the hand of a public officers duly authorized in that behalf by the Governor and Notice thereof shall be given to the holder. (7) The title of the holder of a right of occupancy shall be extinguished on receipt by him of a notice given under Subsection (6) of this section or on such later date as may be stated in the notice. Section 44 of the Land Use Act provides: 44. Any notice required by this Act to be served on any person shall be effectively served on him – (a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served; or (b) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode of that person; or (c) by sending it in a prepaid registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode; or (d) in the case of an incorporated company or body, by delivering it to the Secretary or Clerk of the Company or body at its registered or principal office or sending it in a prepaid registered letters addressed to the Secretary or Clerk of the Company or body at that office; or (e) If it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name and address of a holder or occupier of land on whom it should be served, by addressing it to by the description of “holder” or “occupier” of the premises (naming them) to which it relates, and by delivering it to same person on the premises or, if there is no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous part of the premises.” Per ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, JCA (Pp 50 – 52 Paras B – C)

Olubunmi Akinseye Esq 

Quite often, Title to Land and Ownership to Land are confused and erroneously used interchangeably. It is important to know that All matters bothering on Land in NIGERIA are guided by the LAND USE ACT. 

Let me quickly say that there are concepts in Land Law which must first be stated for better understanding as we discuss this question. FREEHOLD-LANDS and LEASEHOLD-LANDS, are two important among the concepts,and we need to understand them for clearity purpose.

 FREEHOLD-Lands are land not administered by any government Estate agency,they are own by individuals but yet grant of Right of Occupancy on such land is by the Government. While LEASEHOLD-Land is Land under the control of government via Government Estate Agencies and ownership is grant on allocation. 

Mind you, every Parcel of Land is expected to be properly Titled in Documents,as Provided for under the LAND USE ACT.

 The Certificate of Occupancy is the best of such Documents but,it is not an absolute proof of title to Land because every holder of a C.of.O is expected to trace the C.of.O.to a root where the Title is undisputed or undisputable even when it is challenged.

 There are several Court cases, where Certificate of Occupancy were set aside, ordered to be revoked and ownership reversed to the Original owner, whose title is better traceable to “being early settler”, “inheritance from the aboriginal owners”,or “Purchase from the very rightful owner”. 

Also the Government can revoke Title over LEASEHOLD-LANDS,under certain conditions, such as Breach of any of the terms and conditions in the HEAD-LEASE Document known as “Allocation Paper”, this will automatically lead to loss of ownership by the title holder,since the title Document which vests ownership has been revoked. 

 The narrative so far, shows that title over LEASEHOLD-LANDS is easily revokable with the consequential result of loss of ownership. 

The 1999 Constitution of NIGERIA provides for Right to own property and also, clearly states that Government can only make compulsory acquisition only for Public interest, under which condition,the owner of the Land so compulsorily acquired,with or without title Documents, must be justly compensated. And even this, can not be classified as revoked Ownership.

 In my opinion ownership to FREEHOLD-Lands can not be revoked,even if when the owner had obtained a certificate of Occupancy which covers only 99 years,and the Period granted had expired for renewal. Ownership over LEASEHOLD-LANDS is only technically revokable when the Title Document that vests ownership has been revoked for certain reasons.

Ilemobayo Akinbote Esq

By virtue of the provisions of the Land Use Act, the radical title of all land in the state is vested in the governor of the state. What this implies is that the governor holds the land in trust for the benefits of the people. 

However, the governor grants parcel land to members of the public upon payment of certain prescribed fees. 

Where the governor grants a parcel of land to anyone, the governor issues to him what is called Certificate of Occupancy.The grant is otherwise called an assignment to use the land for a period of 99 years less one day. 

The provision of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees the right to acquire movable and immovable, land inclusive, property anywhere in Nigeria.

 Thus, the governor being the tittle holder of all land in his state can revoke land solely for public use or for public interest. The governor has the right to revoke land anywhere in the state provided it is going to be for public interest. 

For instance, where the governor revokes the land belonging to his opposition and gives to his wife. That cannot be said to be for public interest.

 It will be for Public interest where the land so revoked is used for basic infrastructure like roads, hospitals and school etc. 

Those are public infrastructures for which land ownership can be revoked and not for personal use whatsoever. 

The only thread that actually runs through this discourse is “public interest”. Where land is revoked by the governor in any part of the State, it must be exclusively for public interest or public use and nothing more.

Tomisin Fajulugbe Esq 

The Land Use Act 1978 vests the ownership of land in the Governor of the state wherein the Act states that all lands comprised in the territory of each state is vested in the Governor of the said state and such land shall be held in trust for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians. 

While people are allowed to acquire right of ownership to land, subject to fulfilment of certain obligations, there is the need to mention that by virtue of ownership belonging to the Governor, there is room for revocation, howbeit premised on some grounds. 

The Governor is statutorily empowered to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest. Overriding public interest has been defined to mean: (a) the requirement of the land by the Government of the State or by a Local Government in the State, in either case for public purposes within the State, or the requirement of the land by the Government of the Federation for public purposes of the Federation; (b) the requirement of the land for mining purposes or oil pipelines or any purpose connected therewith. (c) The requirement of the land by the Federal Government upon the issue of notice to the Governor.

Also, the Governor may revoke a statutory right of occupancy on the ground of –(a) a breach of any of the provisions which a certificate of occupancy (b) a breach of any term contained in the certificate of occupancy or any special contract made under section 8; (c) a refusal or neglect to accept and pay for a certificate that was issued in evidence of a right of occupancy but has been canceled by the Governor. The title of the holder of a right of occupancy shall be extinguished on receipt of a notice of revocation or such later date as may be stated in the notice. Section 28(6) of the Act.

It is to be noted that Section 44 of the Act provides for the procedure for revocation of statutory right of occupancy and failure to comply with the aforesaid procedure renders the revocation invalid. In Osho v. Foreign Finance (1991) 4NWLR (Pt.184) 157, the Supreme Court held that the notice of revocation not having been duly served on the plaintiff was invalid. Also, in Nitel v. Ogunbiyi (1992) 7NWLR (Pt. 255) at 543, the Court of Appeal nullified a revocation notice that was not personally served on the property owner at the address known to the Government.

 Also, Where a right of occupancy is revoked, the holder will be entitled to compensation by the law based on the value of the unexhausted improvements made to the land.

If a right of occupancy is revoked for public purposes or mining purposes, the occupier shall be entitled to compensation under the appropriate provisions of the Minerals Act or the Mineral Oils Act or any legislation replacing the same. Any dispute as to the amount of compensation calculated shall be referred to the appropriate Land Use and Allocation Committee.

Premised on this, it suffices to say that the Governor has the statutory power to revoke right of occupancy, but same must be done within the ambits of the Land Use Act. 

Oluwaseun Adeleye Esq

The enactment of the Land Use Act, 1978 (“the Act”) birthed a new system wherein all lands within the territory of a state are vested in the governor of that state who shall hold the same in trust for the benefit of the people.

Thus, a person cannot own a land but rather is conferred with a right to occupy the land for a certain time.

Statutory Right of Occupancy is a right of occupancy granted by the Governor under this Act. Section 51 of the Act

Statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor shall be for a definite term and may be granted subject to the terms of any contract may be made by the Governor and the holder. Section 8 of the Act

The rights conferred on a holder of a statutory right of occupancy include the following:

Exclusive rights to the land, which is enforceable against all persons except the governor of the state where the land is situated. Section 14 of the Act.

Sole right to absolute possession of all improvements on the land. Section 15a of the Act.

Right to transfer, assign and mortgage any improvement on the land subject to the provisions of the act. Section 15b of the Act. 

Right to be compensated in the event the land is acquired by the governor for public purposes. Section 29(1) of the Act.

The High Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in respect to proceedings relating to a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor under the Act. Section 39 of the Act. 

Jerry Adeyogbe Esq

Ordinarily, in land law, every Citizen of Nigeria by virtue of Section 43 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) has the inherent and inalienable rights to acquire land anywhere in Nigeria.

However, the right is subject to certain to conditions depending on the case where the Land is situate.

Under the Land Use Act, 1978, the Governor of a State is vested with the powers to hold in trust and administer land for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with provisions of the Land Use Act.

In recognizing the Rights of individuals over their land, the government issues a

Right of Occupancy under the Land Use Act of 1978 which could either be; A Statutory Right of Occupancy and/or A Customary Right of Occupancy.

Under the Statutory Right of Occupancy, the Governor issues a certificate of occupancy  to the holder of the land particularly when the land is situate at an urban area for all purposes in line with Section 5 (1) of the Land Use Act, 1978.

According to Section 5 (1) (I) of the Act the certificate of occupancy will however state the duration for which the  land may be used and where such period is not stated in the certificate, the period will be determined by the term and/or duration of the Statutory Right of Occupancy.

Pursuant to Section 28 of the Land Use Act, 1978 (“the Act”)a government shall lawfully revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest only in line with Sub-sections 1, 2(a)-(c), 3 (a)-(d) of the said Section 28 of the Act,

However, before such land could be revoked for such purpose, the Act by virtue of Sub-section 4 of the Act prescribes that notice of revocation shall been issued and served on the lawful owner of the said land.

Furthermore, Sub-section 5 of the same Section 28 of the Act prescribes that a right of occupancy shall be revoked on the grounds of (a) breach of any of the provisions which a certificate of occupancy is by section 10 deemed to contain; (b) breach of any term contained in the certificate of occupancy or in any special contract made under section 8 (which relates to the definite duration for being a holder of such right of occupancy and such terms granted subject to the terms of any contract)  (c) a refusal or neglect to accept and pay for a certificate which was issued in evidence of a right of occupancy, but has been cancelled by the Military Governor under sub-section 3 of section 10 of the Act.

The law pursuant to Sub-section 2 of the Section 28 of the Act defines Overriding public interest in the case of statutory right of occupancy as follows (a) the alienation by the occupier by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise of any right of occupancy or part thereof contrary to the provisions of the Act or of any regulations made thereunder which further include s: (b) the requirement of the land by the Government of the State or by a local government Federal government for public purposes within the state or federation as the case may be; (c) the requirement of the land for mining purposes or oil pipelines or any purpose connected therewith;

Pursuant to Sub-section 3 of Section 28 of the Act, the revocation of a customary right of occupancy for overriding public interest includes: (a)the requirement of the land by the Government of the State or by a local government Federal government for public purposes within the state or federation as the case may be; (b) the requirement of the land for mining purposes or oil pipelines or for any purpose connected therewith; (c) the requirement of the land for the extraction of building materials;

The law however prescribes the procedure for revocation of the Right of Occupancy to include: (a) the issuance and service of a notice of revocation of such right of occupancy to be served on the holder of such right of occupancy and (b) the prompt payment of reasonable compensation due to the holder of such right of occupancy.

Where reasonable compensation is not paid to such holder, the law by virtue of Section 44 (1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) empowers such individual to approach a competent court of law to determine the amount of compensation such individual is entitled to receive.

Summarily, the Government (either at the Federal, State or the Local government levels) can legally revoke the ownership and/or interest of such Nigerian over land only if it is done in line with the law.