The Land Use Act of 1978 categorizes lands within each state into two main types: Urban and Non-Urban land. Lands in urban areas are placed under the management and control of the Governor, as stated in Section 2(a) of the Land Use Act. On the other hand, Section 2(b) stipulates that all other lands, referred to as Non-Urban lands, shall fall under the control and management of the local government within the jurisdiction where the land is located.
The governor of a state has the power to grant a certificate of occupancy. In Nigerian law, a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) is a crucial document that serves as evidence of lawful ownership and control of land or property. It is a formal land title issued by the appropriate government authority to an individual upon the fulfilment of the essential and formal validities required of him by law.
Generally, in some states, the initial validity of a C of O is 99 years from the date of issuance. However, this period can vary, and some states might grant C of O with shorter durations, such as 50 or 70 years.
By virtue of Section 9(1), the governor can issue a certificate of occupancy in the following circumstances:
• When granting a statutory right of occupancy to any person in pursuance of Section 5(1a).
• Where a person in occupation of land under a customary right of Occupancy applies to him.
• When any person is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy.
So the legal question is: does a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) grant title to the holder? the principle of law is that a C of O does not confer title but acts as evidence, presuming the holder’s right to use and develop the land for a specified purpose, subject to terms and conditions outlined in the document.
In Olohunde & Anor V Adeyoju (2000) 79 LRCN 2297 at 2328 paras D – E, the Court held 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, null and void.”
Similarly, In the case of Chinye A. A. Ezeanah v. Alhaji Muhammed I. Attah (2004) 2 SCNJ 200, the court stated that “a properly issued Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) creates the presumption that the holder is the exclusive owner of the land and that no customary owner with unrevealed title existed at the time of issuance. However, this presumption can be challenged and revoked if evidence proves another person holds a superior title prior to the C of O issuance.“
The underlying rationale is as follows: in a state, all lands, except those falling under specific exceptions like Federal lands, are entrusted to the Governor. Consequently, when the certificate of occupancy expires and the holder chooses not to renew it, the land returns to the state. This process ensures that the state retains control and ownership of the lands, safeguarding their proper management and utilization.
Having in mind that the Land Use Act was promulgated in 1978, what then happens to land vested in some families under customary law? Can a governor still issue a certificate of occupancy in respect of these lands? And if he does, what effect does it have in the eyes of the land? These questions were adequately answered in the 2023 Supreme Court case of Maza v. Awuna (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1868) 207 244
The Court started by reemphasizing the principle of law that where land situated in an urban area had been vested in any person, prior to the commencement of the Land Use Act, such an individual shall continue to hold such land as though a statutory right of Occupancy had been granted to him by the governor. Section 34 of the Act
In this case, the appellant claimed that the respondent trespassed on the land after a dispute over a portion of it in 2004. The respondent, however, stated that he was aware of the appellant’s claim only in 2003 when the appellant presented a Certificate of Occupancy for the land. The respondent provided evidence of his ownership since 1959, conducting various acts of ownership, including selling parts of the land and cultivating economic trees. These actions preceded the issuance of the appellant’s certificate of occupancy in 1981. The supreme court held that the appellant evidence of title is void and the certificate of occupancy was revoked.
The purport of this is, for a Certificate of occupancy or any document of title to land under the Land Use Act, 1978, 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 that Grant. Malami v. Ohikhuare (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 132
So in Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 457, the court ruled that once a valid grant or right exists over a piece of land, it can only be invalidated through lawful revocation, not by issuing another grant to a different person. In that case, the appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy, dated 7th October 1982, was deemed invalid as the respondent had an earlier Certificate of Occupancy, dated 11th August 1982, conferring title to the same land. Unless the respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy was lawfully revoked following the requirements of Section 28 of the Land Use Act, the Governor had no authority to grant another Certificate of Occupancy to someone else.
In conclusion, the principle of law is that a certificate of occupancy does not confer title on a holder. It is only evidencedence which raises the presumption of the title subject to existing ownership claims.
Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 