“The certificate of occupancy issued in 2008 supersedes and takes priority over the one issued in 2011. Where two persons trace their root of title to the same source, the earlier in time prevails. See Ejuetam v. Olaiya (2001) RSCNl P. 140 @ 168.”
— I.S. Bdliya, JCA. Umar Ibrahim v Nasiru Danladi Mu’azu & 2 Ors. (2022) – CA/G/317/2019
SHARE ON
All the documents that the Appellant is referring to as root of his title cannot support his case even if it was accepted as the root of title because the law does not permit any authority to allocation the same land that has earlier been allocated to another person. Without a proper revocation of a certificate of Occupancy, no authority has power to allocate the same land to another. See Na’adade Petroleum Ltd v. FCT Minister & Ors (2022) LPELR-57127 (CA).
The power of the Governor to revoke a right of occupancy must be for overriding public interest and for requirement by the Federal Government, for public purposes. So that any revocation for purposes outside the ones prescribed by section 28 of the Act is against the policy and intention of the Act and can be declared invalid, null and void by a competent court.
– Katsina-Alu, JSC. Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003)
It is settled law that a certificate of occupancy is only a prima facie evidence of title or right of occupancy in favour of the person whose name is on the certificate of occupancy. Where a rebuttal is raised on that presumption, the trial court is bound to examine all the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of competing claims, why the certificate of occupancy is issued in that person’s name and any other issues of law or fact on why a rebuttal of that presumption is raised.
– Bulkachuwa, JSC. Atta v. Ezeanah (2000)
Where a certificate of occupancy has been granted to one of two claimants who has not proved a better title, it must be deemed to be defective and to have been granted or issued erroneously and against the spirit of the Land Use Act and the holder of such a certificate would have no legal basis for a valid claim over the land in issue. So, too, where it is shown by evidence that another person other than the grantee of a certificate of occupancy had a better right to the grant, the court may have no option but to set aside the grant or otherwise discountenance it as invalid, defective and/or spurious as the case may be. See Joshua Ogunleye v. Oni (supra), Dzungwe v. Gbishe and Another (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 528 at 540. For a certificate of occupancy under the Land Use Act, 1978 to be therefore valid, there must not be in existence at the time the certificate was issued, a statutory or customary owner of the land in issue who was not divested of his legal interest to the land prior to the grant.
— Iguh, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995
“For a certificate of occupancy to be valid it must be issued after the grant of a right of occupancy under Section 5 (1) (a) or Section 6 (l)(a) and (b) or Section 34(1) of the Land Use Act. A certificate of occupancy must not be issued when there is in existence another one issued over same land. In Madu Vs Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) P. 286 @ 325, the Supreme Court held that for a certificate of occupancy, under the Land Use Act, to be valid, there must not be in existence, at the time the certificate was issued, a statutory or customary owner of the land in issue who was not divested of his legal interest to the land prior to the grant. However, this principle of law is only relevant in cases where a claimant has proved that he has a prior and un-extinguished title to the land so that the new right of occupancy cannot over-ride, extinguish or have priority over that existing right. In Apostolic Church Vs Olawolemi (1990) 10 SCNJ P. 69 @ 25, the Supreme Court also held that if the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was not in accordance with the Land Use Act, the certificate is defective and the holder has no basis for a valid claim title over the land. See also Azi Vs Reg. Trustees Of Evan. Church (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 195) P. 111 @ 121”.
— I.S. Bdliya, JCA. Umar Ibrahim v Nasiru Danladi Mu’azu & 2 Ors. (2022) – CA/G/317/2019
It is also trite that a Certificate of Occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title or possession, but it is not conclusive proof of title to the land to which it relates. See: Registered Trustees Mission vs Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) 514: Otukpo Vs John (Supra): Adole Vs Gwar (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1099) 562: (2008) LPELR-189 (SC) @ 17 D-E.
— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. Reg. Trustees Apostolic Church v. Reg. Trustees of Grace Church (2021) – SC.270/2011
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry