STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ILLEGAL REVOCATION OF A STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

c of o / r of o

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

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

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN GOVERNOR CAN REVOKE A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

AFTER LAND USE ACT, SHALL CONTINUE TO HOLD AS IF HE HAS CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

Where developed land is not in urban area, the law is that the person in whom such land was vested before the Act came into commencement shall continue to have it vested in him as if he was a holder of a customary right of occupancy granted by a local government. It could therefore be seen that the Land use Act is not a magic wand it is being portrayed to be or a destructive monster that at once swallowed all rights on land and that the Governor or local government with mere issuance of a piece of paper, could divest families of their homes and agricultural lands overnight with a rich holder of certificate of occupancy driving them out with bulldozers and cranes. The law as it is that in areas not declared urban by a state government everybody remains where he has always been as if the new Act has vested in him a customary right of occupancy.

— Belgore, JSC. Ogunleye v Oni (1990) – S.C. 193/1987

Was this dictum helpful?

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS A PRESUMPTION OF TITLE – BETTER TITLE REBUTS IT

In other words, 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. Such a certificate also raises the presumption that at the time it was issued there was not in existence a customary owner whose title has not been revoked. The presumption is however rebuttable because if 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. See Osazuwa v. Oji (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 634) 286. See also Atta vs. Ezeanah (2001) FWLR (Pt. 49) 1489, (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 678) 363; Shogo vs. Adebayo (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 686) 121.

— N. Tobi, JSC. Ezennah v Atta (2004) – SC.226/2000

Was this dictum helpful?

REQUIREMENT FOR THE VALIDITY OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

“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

Was this dictum helpful?

R OF O HOLDS LARGER INTEREST THAN HOLDER OF LEASE

The Interest of a lessee in land is not exactly the same as that of a holder of a right of occupancy. A holder of a right of occupancy enjoys a larger interest than a holder of a lease (i.e. lease) although the two interests enjoy a common denominator which is a term of years.

— Obaseki, JSC. Foreign Finance Corp. v Lagos State Devt. & Pty. Corp. & Ors. (1991) – SC. 9/1988

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.