“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
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)
Wakama v. Kalio (supra), Musdapher JCA (as he then was) had this to say on pages 130/131: “The mere fact that a certificate of occupancy is issued by the Governor does not automatically vest the leasehold thereby created in favour of the person named. A certificate is only a prima facie evidence of the right of occupancy in favour of the person named as allottee. Thus any person without title to a parcel of land in respect of which a certificate of occupancy is issued acquired no right or interest.”
The evidence shows that the right of the plaintiff was revoked on the pretext of overriding public interest but in reality the land was thereafter granted to the 3rd defendant, a private person, for its private business. With the exception of revocation on ground of alienation under section 28(2) (a) or of the requirement of the land for mining purpose or oil pipelines under section 28(2)(c), the Governor has no right to revoke the statutory right of an occupier and grant the same to a private person for any other purpose than those specified by section 28(2) of the Act.
— Bello, CJN. Foreign Finance Corp. v Lagos State Devt. & Pty. Corp. & Ors. (1991) – SC. 9/1988
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)
See Ibrahim v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt.817) 615 at 645 where Kalgo, JSC put the position of the law thus – “It is not in dispute that in the instant appeal, the respondent was not notified by the Governor of the intended revocation of his earlier grant exhibit 1 before granting exhibit A8 (AI3) to the appellant. This is in clear contravention of section 28(6) of the Act, it was also not shown by evidence that the respondent’s land was required for public purposes or interest. The respondent was not heard before the grant of his land was made to the appellant and no compensation was offered or given to the respondent as required by the Act. It is my respective view therefore, that under these circumstances the grant of the statutory right of occupancy over the same piece or parcel of land to which the respondent had earlier been granted certificate of occupancy, was invalid, null and void.”
I think the point must be stressed that a certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act, 1978 cannot be said to be conclusive evidence of any right, interest or valid title to land in favour of the grantee. It is, at best, only a prima facie evidence of such right, interest or title without more and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid and null and void. See Lababedi v. Lagos Metal Industries (Nig.) Ltd. (1973) NSCC 1 at 6.
— Iguh, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry