certificate of occupancy & issues of its revocation by the governor

A Certificate of Occupancy properly issued by a competent authority raises the presumption that the holder is the owner in exclusive possession of the land in respect thereof. In order to succeed in a claim to title a party who holds a Certificate of Occupancy will still need to show his root of title; that is through his vendor and that the vendor or seller has to show valid title to the land over which the purchaser secured his Certificate of Occupancy. This is because certificate of occupancy can only be valid if the root of title validly originates from the original owner(s) of the property. Atanda V. Iliasu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 681) 1469 SC; Otukpo V. John & Anor. (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1299) 357; Okpalugo V. Adesoye (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 476) p.77; Auta V. Ibe (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) p.247; Dakat V. Dashe (1977) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) p.46. Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 7

If a Certificate of Occupancy is successfully challenged and it is proved by evidence that another person had better title to the land before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy then the court can revoke it by nullifying same. Atanda V. Iliasu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 681) 1469 SC; Otukpo V. John (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 661) 1509; Auta V. Ibe (2003) FWLR (Pt. 173) 87; Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 7

A Certificate of Occupancy issued as a result of mistake or inadvertence on the part of officials concerned, though invalid, cannot and should not be said to be fake, false and fraudulent. Yakubu V. Jauroyel & Ors. (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 205 S.C

No. In order to succeed in a claim to a title, a party who holds a Certificate of Occupancy will need to show his root of title, that is, through his vendor and that the vendor or seller has to show valid title to the land over which the purchaser secured his Certificate of Occupancy. This is because the Certificate of Occupancy can only be valid if the root of title duly and validly originated from the customary or original owners of the property. The mere production of a Certificate of Occupancy by a party does not by itself entitle the party to a declaration. Otukpo V. John (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 661) 1509; Okpalugo V. Adesoye (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 476) 77; Auta V. Ibe (2003) FWLR (Pt. 173) 87, (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) 247; Dakat V. Dashe (1977) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) P.1527 paras. B-G; Atanda V. Iliasu (2003) All FWLR (Pt. 681) 1469 SC; Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 9

It is trite law that a Certificate of Occupancy duly issued by the relevant and competent authority confers on its holder a prima facie presumption of exclusive possession of the land to which it relates. Agboola V. UBA Plc. & Ors. (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 375 SC. Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 8

For public land acquisition, a cause of action or right of action accrues as from the date the government acquisition is published in a government gazette. Ajayi V. Adebiyi & Ors. (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137; National University Commission V. Oluwo (20010 3 NWLR (Pt. 699) p.90; University of Ibadan V. Adetoro (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 542) p.404.

It is true that the Governor of a state is vested with the power to revoke any right of occupancy, but he can only do so for overriding public interest. The exercise of this right must be in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Act. Valid and properly served Notice of the Revocation in accordance with Sections 28, 29 and 44of the Land Use Act, Cap.L5 (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) 2004, and Section 44 of the CFRN, 1999 (as amended) are some of the requirements that must satisfied. The there is also the requirement of payment of Compensation on every un-exhausted improvements/development on the land, which must be properly assessed, and where the owner is not satisfied with the assessed value, he must be informed of his right to challenge the outcome in court or tribunal. must also be paid to the owner or owners. Orianzi v. A.G Rivers State & Ors (2017)2 S.C (Pt.1) 104; Bello v. Diocesan Synod of Lagos (1973) 3 SC 131. Ibrahim v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt.817) 615 @ 644; OLOMODA V MUSTAPHA & 3ORS (2019)HELAR ratio 2, 3 and 4; ELF PET. Nig. Ltd V. Umah & 4 Ors [2018] HELAR ratio 2

The land Use Act, in Section 28(2)(a – c ) and (3)(a – d) defines that term as it relates to Statutory and Customary Right of Occupancy, respectively, to include such reasons as the holder of the right alienating it by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sub-leasing or otherwise exercising his right contrary to the provisions of the Land Use Act or any other Regulations made thereunder, and the requirement of the land for mining purposes, for oil pipelines, for extraction of minerals and building materials. But the most relevant definition, and the one that concerns the citizens most, and which the Governors are wont to execute arbitrarily and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Constitutions, is as defined under Section 28(2)(b) and (3)(a) where overriding public interest means “the requirement of the land by 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”. And Section 28(3)(a – d) does same as it relates to Customary Right of Occupancy. See Ibrahim V. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817 615, Orianzi V. A.G. Rivers State (2017) 2 S.C. (Pt. 1) 104, and several other cases wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that any

That would be wrong, unlawful and liable to be nullified by the Courts as private use or ownership of the land falls outside of overriding public interest. In Ibrahim V. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 615 @ 644 the Supreme held that “the revocation of a right of occupancy for public purpose or in the public interest does not include the revocation of the right of a grantee for purpose of vesting it in another”. Very relatedly, the Supreme Court had, in the case of Ibarahim V. Mohammed (supra) held that “the revocation of a right of occupancy for public purpose or in the public interest does not include the revocation of the right of a grantee for the purpose of vesting it in another” See also the case of Orianzi V. A.G. Rivers State (2017)2 S.C (Pt.1) 104; CSS Bookshop Ltd V. Registered Trustees of Muslim Community in Rivers State (2006) 11NWLR (Pt. 992) 530 @ 577; Osho V. Foeign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 157 where the Apex Court of Nigeria said “When the public purpose is stated to be the ground for revocation of a right of occupancy, if the land is later discovered to be in use for other purposes, the revocation of the right of occupancy is vitiated and the revocation order becomes unlawful” Regd. trustees A.C.C v Regd. trustess G.C.C (2021) HELAR ratio 8

Quite truthfully, the Governor of a State in Nigeria has no right or power to revoke a citizen’s Right of Occupancy except it be for purpose of overriding public interest as listed out in Section 28 of the Land Use Act. Where the Governor revokes a right of occupancy for overriding public purpose and interest, and it is later discovered to be in use for other purposes, the revocation will be vitiated and the order of revocation will be declared unlawful. Orianzi v. A.G Rivers State & Ors (2017)2 S.C (Pt.1) 104

When an existing certificate of occupancy is not validly revoked in accordance with the law and the issuing authority goes ahead to grant another certificate of occupancy over and in respect of the same land, the former remains valid while the latter grants becomes useless. A certificate of occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title and possession. It is not conclusive proof of title to land. “The power of the Governor to grant statutory right of occupancy or customary right of occupancy by the appropriate body must not be exercised whimsically such as to deprive someone who had lawful right or title to a piece of land prior to the promulgation of the Land Use Act.” Per Aderemi JSC in the case of Adole v. Gwar (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt.1099) 562; Orianzi v. A.G Rivers State & Ors (2017)2 S.C (Pt.1) 104; Alawiye V. Hon. Minister FCT (2017) HELAR ratio 7