CHIBUEZE EMMANUEL OJEH vs FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 16, 2025FRONTLINE HOLDINGS VS. WEMA BANK
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (SC) 35111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Feb 23, 2017
Suit Number: SC.99/2007
CORAM
PARTIES
NAPOLEON S. ORIANZIA APPELLANTS
1.THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, RIVERS STATE2.RIVERS STATE HOUSING AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT3.GRACE DIMA4.SAMUEL DIMA (BY SUBSTITUTION)
AREA(S) OF LAW
None
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Sometime in 1981, the Appellant applied to the Committee on Government Properties to buy one of the abandoned houses. The Committee offered him the property in dispute that is No. 46 Obagi Street, G.R.A. Phase 1 Port Harcourt. He accepted the offer and paid a deposit of N10, 000.00 towards the total value. He was given a receipt for the payment he made, and he was given possession of the property thereof. On 5th April 1983 the Secretary of the Government on behalf of the Rivers State Government executed an agreement with him for the sale of the property. When he went to the property, he found that Major Agbogun was living in it. He then wrote to the Brigade Commander of the Major’s unit informing him of his rights in the property. The Brigade Commander wrote to the Major asking the Major to pay rents to the Appellant. The army seized power from the Civilians on 31/12/83, and by then the Appellant was a Civil Commissioner in Rivers State just for one month, all the Civil Commissioners were arrested and detained including him. He was charged with enriching himself with three properties, which included the property in dispute. He appeared before Justice Uwaifo’s Panel in Lagos. The Panel went into the matters and recommended that all his plots be given back to him.
The Armed Forces Ruling Council approved that decision. The Appellant was released from detention on 29/9/85 and thereafter he regained possession of the property in dispute. Later, the Rivers State Government set up the Sanomi Panel to look into allocations of plots in Rivers State from 1/10/79 to 31/12/83. He was invited and he appeared before the Panel. At the conclusion of that exercise, the government issued a white paper on it and the property was affected. His said property was shown in the schedule for properties to be retained as Government Quarters. Later he noticed that the property was going to be sold to Dr. Dima, and in reaction, he immediately protested to the 2nd Defendant against the sale. Inspite of the protest, they went ahead and sold the property hence, the Appellant filed an action at the Rivers State High Court claiming a declaration that he is entitled to the statutory Right of Occupancy of the Land that the purported sale of the said property by the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect amongst other. At the trial, the Appellant testified on his own behalf. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff (now Appellant) and declared that the purported sale of the said property by the 2nd Defendant to Dr. Charles Dima (deceased) is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect. The 3rd and 4th Respondents herein were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the lower Court. In a considered judgment, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment has further appealed to this Court. The 1st Respondent filed a preliminary objection urging the Court to discountenance Grounds 1 and 4 of the Appellants’ grounds of appeal which was heard before the appeal.
HELD
Preliminary Objection Overruled, Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the appellant did prove that he is entitled to the declaration of title over the disputed property and there is no feature that deprived him of his right of occupancy over the said property.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – RATIONALE FOR RESOLVING A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ISSUED AGAINST ANY ASPECT OF AN APPEAL FIRST
“Where a preliminary objection is issued against any aspect of an appeal, it must be heard and resolved first before the resolution of the issues for determination of the appeal. The reason for this is obvious. An appeal heard on a defective process will result in a void decision.”
GROUNDS OF APPEAL- STATUS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL FORMULATED OUTSIDE THE DECISION APPEALED AGAINST
“The law is settled beyond any doubt that grounds of appeal must arise and be related to the decision against which appeal lies, and should constitute a challenge to the ratio of the decision. Any ground of appeal that formulated outside the decision appealed against is incompetent and ought to be discountenanced. See Saraki V. Kotoye (Supra); Egbe V Alhaji (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) 546 at 590.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“The law is settled that the burden of proof in a claim for declaration of title to land lies on the plaintiff, who generally must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendants case. See Kodilinye V. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336, Udegbe V. Nwokafor(1963) 1 SCNLR 184, Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) SC 291, Piaro V. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – METHODS OF PROVING A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“It is also the law that a claim for declaration of title to land may be proved by any of the five ways stated and restated in numerous decisions of this Court. See Piaro v Chief W. Tenalo(supra); Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 1 NMLR 200; Makanjuola V. Balogun (1989) NWLR (Pt. 108) 192; Otukoya V. Ashiru (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 322) 1479. These five methods of proving title or ownership to land are:-
1. By traditional evidence;
2. by production of document of title which must be duly authenticated;
3. by the exercise of numerous and positive acts of ownership over a sufficient length of time to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner of the land;
4. by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land, and
5. by proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstance rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition bethe owner of the land in dispute.
In Olukoya v Ashiru (supra) this Court gave the third method of proving ownership of land as follows:-
“By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion thereof.
AVERMENT – STATUS OF AVERMENTS IN A STATEMENT OF CLAIM NOT DENIED
“Where an averment in a statement of claim is not denied in a statement of defence, same is deemed admitted. That which is admitted needs no proof. See Adesanoye V. Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 671) at 145 paragraph A.”
JURISDICTION OF AN APPELLATE COURT -WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER MATTER NOT ADJUDICATED UPON AT THE TRIAL COURT
“The law is trite that an appellate Court is only concerned with matters that are properly placed before it. It has no jurisdiction over a matter that was not raised and adjudicated upon at the trial Court.”
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY-POWER OF THE GOVERNOR AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO GRANT STATUTORY AND CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“Sections 5 and 6 of the Land Use Act empowers the Governor and the Local Government to grant statutory and customary right of occupancy respectively. Section 8 of the same Act provides that the statutory right of occupancy granted under Section 5 (1)(a) shall be for a definite time and may be granted subject to the terms of any contract which may be made by the Governor and the holder not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. There is however, no such requirement for a customary right of occupancy. Section 10 of the Act provides for certain condition and provisions in the certificate of occupancy upon grant of a statutory right of occupancy as evidence of such grant to the holder of the right of occupancy.
Sections 34 and 36 of the Act provide for deemed right of occupancy by recognizing the existence of right of ownership before the coming into force of the Land Use Act, 1978. It follows therefore that a customary right of occupancy whether granted or already being used or occupied, must be used in accordance with customary law, either by individual or family Thus, under Section 5 and 6 of the Land Use Act, the following units of ownership exist as follows:-
1. Formal statutory right of occupancy granted under Section 5 of the Act.
2. Formal customary right of occupancy granted under Section 6 of the Act.
3. Deemed statutory right of occupancy granted under Section 34.
4. Deemed customary right of occupancy granted under Section 35 of the Act.
All these units of rights are recognized under Section 36 of the Act. From the foregoing, customary right of occupancy predates the Land Use Act and it is not a subject of a grant.”
CERTIFICATE OF STATUTORY OR CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – WHETHER A CERTIFICATE OF STATUTORY OR CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED UNDER THE LAND USE ACT IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF VALID TITLE TO LAND
“In Olohunde & Anor V Adeyoju (2000) 79 LRCN 2297 at 2328 paras D – E, this Court had this to say:-
“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, null and void.” See Kyari v Alkali & 3 Ors (2001) 5 SCNJ 421.”
ONUS TO PROOF- ON WHO LIES THE ONUS TO PROVE
“The law is settled that he who asserts has the onus to prove what he asserts if he is to succeed.”
PROOF OF FACT -DUTY OF PARTY RELYING ON ANY FACT
“In Osho V. Foreign Fin. Corp (Supra) at page 201, paragraphs G – H, Belgore JSC (as he then was) said –
“A party relying on any fact must not only plead that fact but must also proffer evidence in proof thereof. Nowhere in the written record is there evidence of revocation of the right of occupancy of the respondent…”
REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY- EFFECT OF REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY OTHER THAN FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE
“In Osho V. Foreign Finance Corp. (supra) this Court, held that when 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 order becomes unlawful.”
RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY- WHETHER TWO RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY CAN SUBSIST IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROPERTY
“Two rights of occupancy cannot subsist in respect of the same property or else there will be anarchy.”
REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – DUTY TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE
“To revoke a right of occupancy for public purpose, the letter and spirit of the law must be adhered to. The terms of revocation, as provided under Section 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act, must be strictly complied with and strict construction of the provision made. See Bello V. Diocesan Synod of Lagos (1973) 3 SC 131. I therefore fully endorse the view of my Lord Belgore JSC (as he then was) in Kyari v Ganaram (Supra), and the view expressed by Ogundare, JSC in Nigerian Engineering Works Ltd V. Denap Ltd (Supra). In Olukoya V. Ashiru (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt.322) 1479 at 1514 Paras. E H, this Court held that an equitable owner in possession cannot be overridden by a subsequent grantee of a legal estate. This is what my brother Ogbuagu, JSC, who read the lead judgment said:-
“As rightly submitted in the Respondent’s brief at page 8, the Jalingo Local Government having lawfully granted the land in dispute to the respondent, in 1981, it was left with nothing to grant to the Appellant subsequently in 1983 during the subsistence of the grant to the respondent… so that, if there is proof that money was paid for the land coupled with an entry into possession it is sufficient, to defeat the title of a subsequent purchaser of the legal estate, if and provided that the possession, is continuously maintained…
Thus, if even it is coupled with possession, it cannot be overridden by a legal estate.” See Ogbu & 4 Ors v Ani & 4 Ors (1994) 78 SCNJ (Pt. II) 363; Sore Mekun V. Shodipo (1959) LLR 30;Orsanmi V. Idowu(1959) 4 FSC 40; Oshodi V. Balogun & Ors (1936) 4 WACA 1.”
STATUTORY RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY – STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON THE GRANT OF STATUTORY RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY
“By virtue of Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978, all land in the State is vested in the Governor of the State who shall hold it in trust and administer it for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians. Section 5 (1) of the Act gives the Governor power to grant inter alia, statutory rights of occupancy to any person for all purposes while Sub-section (2) provides that upon the grant of a statutory right of occupancy pursuant to Sub-section (1), all existing rights to the use and occupation of the land, which is the subject of the statutory right of occupancy, shall be extinguished. Section 28 of the Act provides that a Governor shall have the right to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest, which may include the requirement of the land by the Government of the State or by a Local Government in the State for public purposes within the State (Section 28 (2) (b). Section 29 makes provision for compensation payable on the revocation of a right of occupancy by the Governor for overriding public interest.
In considering the effect of the above provisions of the Land Use Act, this Court in Nigerian Engineering Works Ltd. V. Denap (2001) 18 NWLR (pt.746) 726 @ 758 A – C per Belgore, JSC held:
“Any holder of a right of occupancy, whether evidenced or yet to be evidenced by a certificate of occupancy, holds that right as long as it is not revoked. Revocation in this instance is that one done in accordance with the law, for nobody will lose his right of occupancy by revocation without his being notified first in writing and the subsequent revocation must also be notified to him in writing. Any other method may be a mere notice of intent it will never be notice of revocation. It will be a nullity. The Governor may revoke a right of occupancy for overriding pubic interest (S.28 (1) Land Use Act).
The “overriding public interest” is clearly spelt out in Subsections 2 & 3 of Section 28 of the Land Use Act. As for notice required to the holder of right of occupancy that his right of occupancy will be revoked or is revoked, it clearly explained in Section 44 of the Act.
The appellant’s right of occupancy in respect of the property in dispute was purportedly revoked as shown in an official Gazette published on 27th March 1986 (Exhibit P7) for public purpose to wit: for use as Government Quarters. As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, for the purported revocation to be valid, prior notice must be given to the holder of the right of occupancy, as required by Section 28 (6) and 44 of the Land Use Act, The holder is also entitled to compensation by virtue of Section 29 of the Act.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – ON WHO LIES THE ONUS OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“In an action for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the claimant to establish his case on the balance of probabilities. It is also settled law that he must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence. Section 133 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides:
“133. (1) In civil cases, the burden of first proving existence or non-existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the Court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings.
(2) If the party referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the Court that the fact sought to be proved is established the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with.”
Thus notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case, once he has adduced sufficient prima facie evidence to entitle him to the relief sought, the onus shifts to the defendant.”
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY- WHETHER A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF TITLE TO THE LAND
“A certificate of occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title or possession. It is not conclusive proof of title to the land to which it relates. See: Otukpo V. John (2012) 7 NWLR (pt.1299) 357 @ 377; Registered Trustees Mission V. Oloweri (1990) 6 NWLR (pt.158) 514; Adole V. Gwar (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt.1099) 562 @ 590 B C and 618 C E; Ogunleye V. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 745.”
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE GOVERNOR TO GRANT STATUTORY OR CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“In Adole V. Gwar (supra) @ 618 EF His Lordship, Aderemi, JSC opined thus:
“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.”
–
REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT – DEFINITION OF REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT
“The Statutes define a registrable instrument as a document affecting land, whereby one party [the grantor], confers, transfers, limits, charges or extinguishes in favor of another party, [grantee], any right of title to or interest in land and includes a certificate of purchase and a power of attorney under which any instrument may be executed, but does not include a will. Once a document purports to transfer and/or confer interest in land or howsoever described, it becomes an instrument that must be registered See Niger Construction Ltd. V. Ogbimi (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 744) 83; Ikonne V. Nwachukwu (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 172) 214. Where the document does not confer title to land, it need not be registered. It is settled that priority, as regards registrable instruments, is determined not by the date the instrument is made but by the date of registration. In Amankra v. Zankley (1963) 1 All NLR 304; (1963) NSCC (Vol. 3) 243, the same vendor gave conveyances of the disputed land to both parties.”
REGISTRATION OF TITLE – PRIORITY OF INTERESTS UNDER THE LAND INSTRUMENT REGISTRATION STATUTES
“The priority of interests under the Land Instrument Registration Statutes is based on the times the relevant Deeds were registered, therefore, where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails – See Olumide V. Ajayi (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt 517) 433. In Tewogbade V. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 338) 326 SC, this Court per Iguh, JSC, hit the nail right on the head, as follows
Where two contesting parties trace their title in respect of the same piece of land to the same grantor, the applicable principle of law has always been that the latter in time of the two parties to obtain the grant cannot maintain an action against the party who first obtained a valid grant of the land from such a common grantor. The reason is obvious as a grantor having successfully divested himself of his title in respect of the disputed piece or parcel of land by the first grant would have nothing left to convey to a subsequent purchaser under the elementary principle of nemo dat quod non habet as no one may convey what no longer belongs to him.
In Akingbade V. Elemesho (1964) NSCC (Vol.3) 96, the same plot of land was conveyed by two different vendors to two different purchasers, and one bought his plot two months after the other registered his own conveyance, Ademola, CJF, stated as follows-
The Respondent testifies that he went to the land registry to make a search and was told there was no previous conveyance covering the area. This is a strange story; for to say nothing of the earlier conveyances, the Appellant’s conveyance had been handed for registration only two months before It is not possible for the Court to believe the Respondent bought without notice of the Appellants prior equity; he is either untruthful or he deliberately shut his eyes or was guilty of gross negligence in finding out the facts, and this is enough to fix him with notice.
It is settled that a purchaser, who neglects to make a thorough search of the Register is fixed with notice of rights contained in the instruments registered under the various Land Instruments Registration Laws in Nigeria; only a bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice takes priority over someone, who had acquired a prior equitable interest over the same property – see Edokpolo & Co. Ltd. V. Ohenhen (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.358) 511.
REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – IMPROPRIETY OF THE GOVERNOR TO REVOKE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN PROPERTY AND REALLOCATE THE SAID PROPERTIES TO OTHER CITIZENS
“To justify its action is to succumb to the whims and caprices of a Government that comes into power, revokes the rights of its citizens in property, using relevant provisions of the Land Use Act, only to reallocate the properties thereafter to some other citizens.
The Appellant has a right; he was deprived of enjoying same; and there must be a remedy – see Bello V A-G Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.45) 828, where Oputa, JSC, aptly observed as follows
“Holt. CJ in the now famous case of Ashby V. White (1703) postulated the principle that “if a plaintiff has a right he must of necessity have the means to vindicate it and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment or exercise of it and indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal”. The Maxim “Ubi jus, Ubi remediun” is simply the latin rendition of the above principle. The maxim is so fundamental to the administration of justice that where there is no remedy provided by common law or Statute, the Courts have been urged to create one. The Courts cannot therefore be deterred by the novelty of an action. In other words, the law is an equal dispenser of justice, and leaves none without a remedy for his right. Wherever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy to redress that wrong. Justice, it is said, must not only be done but must be seen to be done.”
SENTIMENTS -WHETHER SENTIMENTS HAVE A PLACE IN JUDICIAL DELIBERATIONS
“But this is a Court of law, not sentiments or morality of emotion – Att-Gen., Lagos State V. Eko Hotels (2006) NWLR (pt. 1011) 378. In other words, sentiments have no place in judicial deliberations -Kalu V. F.RN. (2016) LPELR-40108 (SC). See also Suleiman V. C.O.P. (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1089) 298, where Tobi, JSC, observed-
The Court cannot exercise its whims indiscriminately. Similarly there is no room for the Court to express its sentiments. It is a hard matter of law; facts and circumstances which the Court considers without being emotional, sensitive or sentimental.”
FINDINGS OF FACTS – STATUS OF FINDINGS OF FACTS NOT CHALLENGED
“The Rivers State Government, represented by the Attorney- General, has not appealed or challenged the decision of the trial Court. The effect of the Learned Attorney-Generals decision not to appeal the determinations or specific findings of fact against the Rivers State Government, particularly against the direct and specific actions of the Rivers State Government which gave rise to the cause of action in this matter, is that those specific determinations and findings of fact against it are acceptable to it and are conclusive and binding on it. See Odiase V. Agho (1972) 1 ALL NLR (pt.1) 170 at 176; Foreign Finance v. L.S.D.P.C. (1991) 1 NSCC 520; Alakija V. Abdulai (1996) 6 NWLR (pt.552) 1 at 24.
Following on the heels of this principle is another related or derivative principle to the effect that a finding or decision of a trial Court, whether on an issue of fact or law, that is not challenged on appeal to the Court of Appeal, such decision or finding, rightly or wrongly, stands and must not be disturbed. See Nwabueze V. Okoye (1999) 4 NWLR (pt.91) 664; Oshodi V. Eyifuem (2000) 13 NWLR (pt.684) 332; Timitimi V. Amabebe (1953) 14 WACA 374 at 377.”
REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – ON WHO LIES THE ONUS TO PROVING THE ISSUANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES FOR REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“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.
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”.
The issuance of the mandatory or statutory notices under Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act being conditions precedent for proper revocation of a Right of Occupancy in or over a landed property, and the revocation of the said Right of Occupancy are matters of fact, which must be proved by the party asserting the revocation of a Right of Occupancy.”
REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – NATURE OF REVOCATION SUFFICIENT TO DEPRIVE A TITLE HOLDER HIS RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“Only a revocation done in accordance with the due process of the law can deprive a title holder his Right of Occupancy.”
REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – DUTY OF THE GOVERNOR IN REVOKING ANY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“Even where the Right of Occupancy is stated to be revoked for public purpose, this Court had, in C.S.S. Bookshops Ltd. v. R.T.M.C.R.S. (2006) 11NWLR (pt.992) 530, insisted that there is the need to spell out the public purpose in the notice of revocation. It is imperative that the reason for revoking any person’s Right of Occupancy must be stated in the Notice. See Adukwu V. Commissioner For Works, Lands & Transport, Enugu State {1997} 2 NWLR (pt.489) 588; Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd. V. Denap Ltd. (1997) 10 NWLR (pt.525) 481.
Revocation of the Right of Occupancy or title to landed property is not just a mere executive or administrative act that can be done in secret or in any surreptitious manner and later conveyed in official Government gazette. The title holder is not only entitled to the notice of the proposed revocation with the public purpose for the revocation clearly spelt out therein, he is also entitled to be heard on the proposed revocation of his title. My firm view, on this, is that reading Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act together with Section 36(1) of the Constitution, the Governor when it behoves him to revoke any Right of Occupancy in or over any landed property has a duty to act quasi-judicially and in transparent manner. Even if no label of judicially or quasi-judicially may be placed on the Governor to so act, his duty to act fairly can not be denied since he has a duty to give notice of the intended revocation wherein he must spell out the public purpose of the intended revocation to the title holder. See Hart V. Military Governor, Rivers State & Ors. (1976) 11 SC (Reprint) 109.”
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – WHETHER A COMPETING RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY CAN SIMULTANEOUSLY EXIST IN OR OVER A PIECE OF LAND WITH A PREVIOUS RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“The law is settled that for as long as the previous or earlier title or Right of Occupancy in or over a piece of land subsists, no other rival or competing title or Right of Occupancy can simultaneously exist in or over the same piece of land. As Belgore, JSC (as he then was) stated in Kyari V. Ganaran (1997) 2 NWLR (pt.488) 380 at 400, the subsequent grant of that other “Right of Occupancy over the same piece of land will therefore be merely illusory and invalid”
REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – DUTY OF A PARTY WHO RELIES ON THE REVOCATION OF A PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“Only the valid and effective revocation of the Plaintiff/Appellant’s Right of Occupancy would ensure that the subsequent Right of Occupancy, evidenced by Exhibit D4, was valid in law. Accordingly, whoever relies on the fact of the revocation of the Plaintiff/Appellant’s Right of Occupancy must not only plead that fact of the revocation but must also lead evidence thereof to establish that the purported revocation of the Right of occupancy of the Plaintiff/Appellant was valid in law and existent in fact. See Osho V. Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (pt.184) 157.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, 2011|Land Use Act 1978|
