ILLUMINATIONS ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IN NIGERIA

A. Background:

Prior to March 29, 1978, title to land in Nigeria could be derived under the received English law and under the customary law. This dual land tenure system introduced many complexities and uncertainties in the Nigerian land tenure. Virtually, all public agencies mentioned the difficulties in land acquisition as the most crucial factor frustrating the implementation of a number of their projects.

The Federal Military Government in its desire to make the acquisition of land for public use easier for its Third National Development Plan of 1975-1980 and to replace the dual land tenure system with a national and simplify the Land Use system, promulgated the Land Use Decree No.6 of 1978 on the 29th March 1978 now referred to as the Land Use Act (LUA).

Though, there are many legislations dealing with land in Nigeria, the most crucial legislation is the Land Use Act. The Land Use Act nationalised all the land in each state in Nigeria by vesting all the land in a state in the Governor of a state and created a new interest in the land tenural system called right of occupancy which is the right of the land owners to the occupation and use of the land. Kayode Eso, JSC in Nkwocha v. Governor Anambra State & Ors (1984) 1 SCNLR 634 at 652 held that:

"The tenor of the Act as single piece of legislation is the nationalisation of all lands in the country by vesting of its ownership in the State leaving the individual with an interest in land which is a mere right of occupancy, and which is the only right protected in his favour by law, after the promulgation of the Act."

The LUA also introduced the certification of the right of occupancy with the radical introduction of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. by the relevant State Governors to holders of the right of occupancy. Therefore, the focus of this legal illumination is the provisions of the LUA and the principles of law expounded by the courts on the right of land occupancy and the legal status of Certificate of Occupancy in land transactions in Nigeria.

B. RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

1. Holder of Right of Occupancy:

The Holder of Right of Occupancy is defined by Section 51 of the LUA as: 

"A person entitled to a right of occupancy and includes any person to whom a right of occupancy has been validly assigned or has validly passed on the death of a holder but does not include any person to whom a right of occupancy has been sold or transferred without a valid assignment, nor a mortgagee, sub lessee or sub-under lessee"

Any person to whom a right of occupancy has been sold or transferred without a valid assignment, means without the consent of the Governor.

2. Classifications of Right of Occupancy

Right of occupancy by virtue of Sections 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of the Act is classified into statutory and customary rights of occupancy.

a. Statutory Rights of Occupancy

The Governor of a State has the exclusive power to grant the right of occupancy in respect any land in the territory of each state to any person for all purposes ,whether the land is located in an area designated as an urban area or not. This right of occupancy so granted by the Governor is defined as “statutory right of occupancy” under the LUA.See Sections 5 (1) (a) and 51 of the LUA.

i. Delegation of the Power to grant Statutory Right of Occupancy: The Governor may delegate to a State Commissioner power to grant Statutory Right of Occupancy to any person for all purposes, subject to such restrictions, conditions and qualifications, not being inconsistent with the provisions, or general intendment, of the Act as the Governor may specify. Where the power to grant certificates has been delegated to a State Commissioner such certificates shall be expressed to be granted on behalf of the Governor. See: Section 45 of the LUA: Land Use Act (Delegation of Powers) Notice L.S.LN 6 of 1992.

ii. Land Vested in the Federal Government: in In respect of land comprised in the Federal Capital Territory or any land held or vested in the Federal Government in any State, the powers to grant rights of occupancy is vested in the President or any minister so designated by him. The right of occupancy so granted is also defined as statutory right of occupancy See Section 51(2) of the Act.

b. Customary Right of Occupancy:

 

There are two types of customary right of occupancy, these are:

i. Right of occupancy expressly granted by a Local Government authority - Local Government authorities are vested with the power to grant right of occupancy in respect of land in their localities which are not designated as an urban area by the State Government. The right of occupancy so grant by a Local Government authority is defined as a customary right of occupancy. See Section 6 of the Act.

ii. Right of occupancy enjoyed by people who hold their title under customary law - It should be noted that, under the Land

Use Act, a customary right of occupancy includes the right of a person or community lawfully using or occupying land in accordance with customary law. See Section 50 (1); Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 190) 161, per Karibi-Whyte,JSC.

3. Classifications of Statutory and Customary Rights of Occupancy.

Both statutory right of occupancy and customary right of occupancy are further classified into Statutory right of occupancy deemed to have been granted by the state Governor pursuant to Section 34(2) of the Act and the Customary right of occupancy deemed to have been granted by the Local Government under Section 36(2) of the Act. In both cases of statutory and customary rights of occupancy, therefore, there exist an actual grant as well as a deemed grant.

a. An Actual Grant is naturally a grant made by the Governor of a State or a Local Government

b. A Deemed Grant comes into existence automatically by the operation of law.

See: Alhaji Goni Kyari A v. Alhaji Ciroma Alkali & 2 Ors (2006) 6 NSCQLR 819 A. I. Iguh JSC at page 847.

Thus, the plaintiff who failed to establish that he had any interest whatsoever, whether legal or equitable to the land in dispute cannot by any means be rightly said to have had the land in dispute vested in him immediately before the commencement of the Land Use Act on the 29th March, 1978. He cannot, therefore, rightly be deemed a holder of a statutory right of occupancy under Section 34 of the Land Use Act immediately before the commencement of the Act. See: Sunmonu Olohunde & Anor. v. Professor S. K. Adeyoju (2000) VOLUME 2 NSCQLR 1472 per A. I. Iguh JSC at page 1495.

In the case of Kyari v. Alkali & 2 Ors (supra) the Supreme Court in answering the question, whether the land in dispute having been deemed granted to the appellant could still be validly and lawfully granted a second time, held per Iguh JSC at pages 849 – 850 thus:

“It is my view that the one grant is in all respects as good as the other and that the appellant and members of his family from the 29th day of March, 1978 became the lawful beneficiaries and/or grantees of the aforesaid customary right of occupancy over the land in dispute with the Konduga Local Government as their grantors. It is my further view that the land in dispute having been deemed granted to the appellant by the operation of law by the Konduga Local Government as from the 29th March, 1978 could not thereafter be lawfully or validly granted a second time by the same Local Government during the subsistence of the first grant as the land would then not be free for allocation under the well known maxim, nemo dat quod non habet. The purported grant under exhibit A is therefore patently unjustifiable, unlawful and clearly invalid and of no effect.”

4. Size of Land an Holder of a Right of Occupancy is Entitled To

No single customary right of occupancy shall be granted in respect of an area of land in excess of 500 hectares if granted for agricultural purposes, or 5,000 hectares if granted for grazing purposes, except with the consent of the Governor. The size of a statutory right of occupancy is however limited to not more than half of a hectare for undeveloped land and a forfeiture of the residue to the governor. Section 6 (2)

5. The Rights of a Holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy

The rights of a holder of a statutory right of occupancy are codified in Sections 14 and 15 of the Land Use Act. The following are the rights of the holder of a statutory right of occupancy:

a. Exclusive Right to the Land: The holder shall have exclusive right to the land the subject of the right of occupancy against all persons other than the Governor. Section 14 of the Act. In the case of Major Sheu Ibrahim v. Dr. Junaid Salik Mohammed (2003) 13 NSCQLR 647, the eminent jurist E, O. Ayoola. JSC, at page 685 made the following illuminations on the exclusive right of a holder of a statutory right of occupancy:

• It is evident that the holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy has: (a) a title which by virtue of sections 14 and 15 confers on him ""exclusive rights to the land" and sole right to and absolute possession of ' all the improvements thereon and. (b) a title which is only liable to be extinguished upon revocation of the right pursuant to the Act.

• The exclusive right of the holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy to the land which is subject of a Statutory Right of Occupancy, no doubt includes the right to the use and occupation of the land and the right to deal with it, howsoever he would, subject to the provisions of the Act any condition of the grant and as always to the rights of others.

• Whereas the title of the holder of a right of occupancy can only be extinguished as provided for in section 28, subsection (2) of section 5 does not mention anything about the extinguishing of 'existing' rights to the use and occupation of the land.

• Notwithstanding that sometimes. 'title and right' can be used interchangeably, in the context in which phrase 'rights' to the use and occupation is used in the Act and in the overall context of the Scheme of the Act. It is expedient to acknowledge a distinction. The title of the holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy embraces several rights of which right to the use and occupation of land is just one.

• The title holder or to be more exact the rights holder has apart from the right to the use and occupation of the land, the right to exclusive possession and disposition. The title holder has this proprietary interest which the mere user and occupier of the land does not have.

b. Ownership of all Improvements: The holder of a right of occupancy has sole right to and absolute possession of all the improvements on the land. Section 15 of the Act

c. Right to Alienate: The holder has a right to alienate the land or the improvements on the land or both provided he obtains the consent of the Governor.

d. Right to Personal Service of Notice of Revocation: The holder of a right of occupancy is entitled to be served personally with the notice of the revocation of his right of occupancy.

e. Right to Compensation: The holder of a right of occupancy is entitled to compensation if the right of occupancy is validly revoked. Section 29 of the Act.

f. Right to be Notified of payment of Penal Rent: The holder has a right to be informed of the rent payable from time to time. If the Governor fixes or revises a penal rent he shall cause a notice in writing to be sent to the holder informing him of the amount thereof and the rent so fixed or revised shall commence to be payable one calendar moth from the date of the receipt of such notice. Section 19(3)

See: Obasohan v. Omorodion (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 206 at 226 , paras. B-D

6. Statutory Right of Occupancy is a Contractual:

Statutory right of occupancy granted under the provisions of Section 5 (1) (a) of the LUA shall be for a definite term 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 this Act. See: Section 8 of the Act. The express conditions, terms or covenants may vary from state to state. However, the relevant clauses include the following :

a. Purpose Clause- The purpose for which the right of occupancy was granted. It may be for residential commercial, industrial or agricultural.

b. Alienation Clause - That the holder will not alienate without the consent of the Governor.

c. Payment of Rent Clause

d. Development Clause - It usually requires the grantee to develop the land the subject matter of right of occupancy within a specified period and sometimes the development should be to a specified value.

e. Right of Entry Clause - That the Governor or his agent shall have a right to enter and inspect the land.

f. Quantum of Interest Clause - This clause usually shows that the grant is for specified years.

g. Payment for Unexhausted Improvement Clause

7. Age of the Holder of Statutory Right of Occupancy

It shall not be lawful for the Governor to grant a statutory right of occupancy or consent to the assignment or subletting of a statutory right of occupancy to a person under the age of twenty-one years; Provided that -

(a) Where a guardian or trustee for a person under the age of 21 has been duly appointed for such purpose the Governor may grant or consent to the assignment or subletting of a statutory right of occupancy to such guardian or trustee on behalf of such person under age;

(b) A person under the age of twenty-one years upon whom a statutory right of occupancy devolves on the death of the holder shall have the same liabilities and obligations under and in respect of his right of occupancy as if he were of full age notwithstanding the fact that no guardian or trustee has been appointed for him.

8. Granting Statutory Right of Occupancy Pertaining to a Building on a Land:

Several provisions of the Act, some of which have been highlighted, and the general intendment of the Act make it clear that the Act relates to land. The building on the land merely makes it a ‘developed land’ in terms of Section 51(1). There cannot be a statutory right of occupancy in relation to rooms in a building. See: Obasohan v. Omorodion (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 206 at Paras. H-A.

9. The Right of the Owner of a Developed Land at the Commencement of the Land Use Act

In the case of Olohunde v. Adeyoju (Supra) Uwaifo JSC at page 1505 held that, the land in dispute being developed land before the Land Use Act came into force, whoever had it vested in him then was deemed to have continued to hold the land after the commencement of the Act as if he was the holder of a statutory right of occupancy issued by the Governor under section 5 of the Act. It then follows that no other person can be granted a right of occupancy unless section 28 of the Act is complied with. Any right of occupancy otherwise purportedly granted is contrary to the provisions of the Act and will be of no validity. It will be set aside by the court. See Teniola v. Olohunkun (1999) 5 N.W.L.R (Pt.602) 280.

10. Duration of the Statutory Right of Occupancy

Statutory right of occupancy granted under the provisions of section 5 (1) (a) of the LUA shall be for a definite term 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 this Act. Section 8 of the Act. Usually it is for a term of 99 years or less.

11. Alienation of Statutory Right of Occupancy

Sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act provide that:

“It shall not be lawful for the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained:”

“Any transaction or any instrument which purports to confer on or vest in any person any interest or right over land other than in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall be null and void.”

Thus, Section, 22(1) quoted above is clear and unambiguous. The section clearly prohibits the holder of a statutory right of occupancy from alienating his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained. Owoniboys Technical Services Limited v Union Bank of Nigeria (2003) 9 MJSC 38 AT 53-54, per Ejiwunmi, JSC.

Any alienation done without the Governor’s consent first had and obtained is by virtue of Section 26 null and void. Awojugbade Light Industries Limited v. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.390) 379; Savannah Bank of Nig. ltd. v. Ajilo (1987) 2 NWLR 421; Brossette Manufacturing Nig. Ltd. v. M/S Ola Ilemobola Limited &3 Ors. (2007) 30 NSCQLR 1137

12. Obtaining the Consent of the Governor for Alienation of a Right of Occupancy.

Section 22(2) of the Act is clear as to what the holder of a statutory right of occupancy must do to obtain the consent of the Governor. He must submit an instrument executed in evidence of the alienation by way of assignment, mortgage or sublease. Section 22 (2) of the Act provides that:

“The Governor when giving his consent to an assignment mortgage or sub-lease may require the holder of a statutory right of occupancy to submit an instrument executed in evidence of the assignment, mortgage or sub-lease and the holder shall when so required deliver the said instrument to the Governor in order that the consent given by the Governor under subsection (1) may be signified by endorsement thereon.”

13. Substantial Compliance with Provisions of Section 22 of the Land Use Act.

In the case of Brossette Manufacturing Nig. Ltd. v. M/S Ola Ilemobola Limited &3 Ors. (2007) 30 NSCQLR 1137, an agreement (Exhibit 3), was prepared in anticipation of obtaining Governor’s consent. In his evidence the Plaintiff said: “the document was not dated because we had not yet obtained the approval of the Governor.” It was held by the Supreme Court that, the agreement though; inchoate was in substantial compliance with Section 22 of the Land Use Act. In the lead judgment, Katsina-Alu, JSC at pages 1163-1164 held as follows:

“The legal consequence of this is that the agreement was inchoate or at best a mere escrow till the consent of the Governor was obtained. What this means is this. That agreement did not and could not transfer title in land. See; Anambra State Housing Development Corporation v. Emekwue (1996) 1 SCNJ 98 at 132- 133 where this court held as follows: “Being a mere escrow, therefore the Deed of Lease passed no interest in the property to the Defendant. It follows therefore that whatever view one takes of Exhibit 3 they did not pass any interest in the property here concerned to the Defendant and he consequently acquired no legal title to the property.” The Court of Appeal in the course of its judgment held as follows: “Section 22 of the Land Use Act Cap. 202 of the Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 1990 does not render null and void or illegal a purported sublease, such an agreement would only be dormant, or inchoate and creates no legal relationship until the requisite consent is sought and obtained from the appropriate authority. That this was the intention of the appellant was quite manifest from his testimony before the learned trial Judge. Section 22 (2) of the Land Use Act envisages a situation whereby some form of agreement would be presented to the Governor to which he would consent or withhold his consent. It is not likely to be the intention of the maker of the enactment for the Governor to accede to a mere intention of the parties. I think some concrete terms should be agreed to by the parties for presentation to the Governor. In my respectful opinion what the appellant and fourth respondent did in Exhibit 3 was in substantial compliance with provisions of Section 22 of the Land Use Act.”

Underline supplied

14. Revocation of Right of Occupancy and Compensation

The Governor of a state is vested with the statutory power to revoke rights of occupancy by Section 28 of the Act and by virtue of subsection (2) and (3) of Sections 28, the power of the Governor to revoke rights of occupancy is not limited to statutory rights of occupancy, it includes customary rights of occupancy.

A person granted a right of occupancy under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act acquires a vested right. So also is a person deemed to have been granted a right of occupancy under the relevant provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Act. It is an accepted legal principle that vested rights are not lightly taken away. Under the Land Use Act it must be in accordance with Section 28 and in addition compensation is payable by virtue of Section 29.

Sections 5(1) (a) and (2) of the Land Use Act are certainly not to be applied to defeat vested rights recognised under the Act itself. They may, admittedly, defeat "existing rights to the use and occupation of the land" but not vested rights unless such vested rights are first revoked under Section 28 of the Act as appropriate. This may be:

(a) For overriding public interest

(b) By notice on behalf of the President for public purposes,

(c) For breach of the provisions imposed by Section 10 of the Act,

(d) For breach of any term envisaged by Section 8 of the Act,

(e) For refusal or neglect to comply with the requirement specified as per Section 9 (3) of the Act.

Olohunde v. Adeyoju (supra) at per Uwaifo, JSC at page 1504.

Any revocation of a right of occupancy by the Governor in exercise of powers under the Act must be within the confine of the provisions of section 28 of the Act. Consequently, any exercise of this power of revocation for purposes outside those outlined or enumerated by Section 28 of the Act or not carried out in compliance with provisions of the section, can be regarded as being against the policy and intention of the Land Use Act resulting in the exercise of the power being declared invalid, null and void by a competent court in exercise of its jurisdiction on a complaint by an aggrieved party. See C.S.S. Bookshops Ltd v. The Registered Trustees’ of Muslim Community in Rivers State & Anor. 3 Ors. (2006) 26 NSCQLR 477, per M.Mohammed, JSC at page 504 ; Dantsoho v. Alhaji Mohammed (2003) 14 NSCQLR 1, per Katsina-Alu, JSC at page 15.

Thus, for a revocation of a right of occupancy to be valid in Nigeria, it must be made strictly in compliance with the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power of revocation of the right of occupancy by the Governor as provided in Section 28 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) (6) and (7 ) and Section 44 of the Land Use Act and Sections 43 and 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

15. Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction of Courts

The High Court of a state has an exclusive jurisdiction to determine any dispute over land which is the subject a statutory rights of occupancy, while an Area Court or Customary Court or other courts of equivalent jurisdiction has concurrent jurisdiction with High Court on disputes and matters pertaining to customary right of occupancy. See Section 39.

C. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

Section 9(1) and (2) of the LUA provides that, any person that is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy shall be issued a certificate under the hand of the Governor as evidence of such right of occupancy. Such certificate shall be termed a “Certificate of Occupancy” and there shall be paid therefore by the person in whose name it is issued, See: Section 9(1) and (2) of the LUA.

Thus, a certificate of occupancy by virtue of Section 9(1) and (2) of the LUA is ordinarily the evidence of the title of the holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy. A certificate of occupancy also raises the presumption that, the holder is the owner in exclusive possession of the land to which the certificate relates.See: Auta v. Ibe (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) 247 (SC).

1. Certificate of Occupancy is Prima Facie Evidence of Valid Title.

However, the existence of a certificate of occupancy is merely a prima facie evidence of title to the land it covers and no more. Nor does mere registration validate spurious or fraudulent instrument of title or a transfer or grant which in law is patently invalid or ineffective.Alhaji Goni Kyari A v. Alhaji Ciroma Alkali & 2 Ors. (2006) VOLUME 6 NSCQLR 819 at page 846, per A. I. Iguh JSC.

It is beyond dispute that one of the recognised methods of establishing title to land is by the production of valid documents of title evidencing the title claimed. It must however be stressed that this does not and cannot mean that once instrument of title to land, such as a Deed of Conveyance or a certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy is tendered in court, this automatically proves that the land therein purportedly conveyed, granted or transferred by that instrument becomes the property of the grantee. Kyari A v. Alhaji Ciroma Alkali (supra)

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 Labadebi v. Lagos Metal Industries (Nig) Limited (1973) N.S.C.C. 1.

2. Pre-requisite for a valid Grant of Certificate of Occupancy

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. See: Olohunde v. Adeyoju (supra) per A. I. Iguh JSC at page 1496 – 1497; Ibrahim v. Mohammed (2003) 13 NSCQLR 647 per, Kalgo, JSC at page 664.

3. Terms and Conditions in Certificate of occupancy:

The terms and conditions of a certificate of occupancy granted under this Act and which has been accepted by the holder shall be enforceable against the holder and his successors in title, notwithstanding that the acceptance of such terms and condition is not evidenced by the signature of the holder or is evidenced by the signature only of some person purporting to accept on behalf of the corporation. See: Section 9(4) of the LUA.

Section 10 of the Act provides that,every certificate of occupancy shall be deemed to contain provisions to the following effect:-

(a) that the holder binds himself to pay to the Governor the amount found to be payable in respect of any unexhausted improvements existing on the land at the date of his entering into occupation;

(b) that the holder binds himself to pay to the Governor the rent fixed by the Governor and any rent which may be agreed or fixed on revision in accordance with the provisions of section 16 this Act.

4. Grant of Certificate of Occupancy to a Person without Better Title

Where a Certificate of Occupancy has been granted to one of two claimants who have 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. Sunmonu Olohunde & Anor. v. Professor S. K. Adeyoju (2000) Volume 2 NSCQLR 1472 at page 1496 per A. I. Iguh JSC.

5. How to Obtain a Certificate of Occupancy

The procedures for application of certificate of occupancy and the documents required really depend on the particular State of the federation, where the land is located. There are basically two ways of applying for a right of occupancy/ certificate of occupancy.

a. By Grant of State Land- This is actual grant by a Governor or Local Government under Section 5 (1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of the Act; or

b. By Ratification of Deemed Grant- This is the application for Certificate of occupancy for existing rights over Land before the enactment of the Land Use Act 1978.

6. Documentation Required to Obtain a Certificate of Occupancy

a. State Land:

The documentation required for obtaining state land certificate of occupancy in Lagos State includes:

i. Formal Letter addressed to the Executive Secretary – Land Use and Allocation Committee, Block 13, Room 4, Lands Bureau, The Secretariat, Alausa, Ikeja.

ii. Standard Allocation Form with Receipt. Lekki Pennisula Schemes, Abijo Commercial and Industrial (Form for Prime Land); other areas (Form for General).

iii. Four Passport Photographs with white background.

iv. Evidence of payment of Income Tax.

v. Current Development Levy (In case of company, Evidence of payment of Income Tax of Two Directors and Development Levy).

vi. Survey Plan

vii. All payment receipts of Land Charges

viii. Vital Information Form

b. Non-State Land

The documentation required for obtaining non-state land certificate of occupancy in Lagos State includes:

i. Formal Letter addressed to the Executive Secretary – Land Use and Allocation Committee, Block 13, Room 4, Lands Bureau, The Secretariat, Alausa, Ikeja.

ii. Completed Certificate of Occupancy Form with receipt.

iii. Land Information Certificate with receipt.

iv. Four original Survey Plan (2 cloth and 2 paper).

v. Four Passport Photograph with white background.

vi. Sketch Map of the Site Location

vii. Purchase Receipt Duly Stamped.

viii. Evidence of payment of Income Tax

ix. Current Development Levy. (In case of Company, Two Directors Tax Clearance and Development Levy).

x. Publication Fee - N10,000.00

xi. Capital Contribution Fee subject to a minimum of N30,000.00

xii. Building Plan Approval if developed.

xiii. Copy of Tenement Rate Receipt (if occupied).

D. CONCLUSION

In life vigilance is the sentinel of fortune and in law equity aids the vigilant. It is instructive to note that, by virtue of the Limitation Law or Act, a right of action over land is extinguished twelve years after the date on which the cause of action accrued. See Section 16 (2) (A), 17 & 21 of the Limitation Law CAP. L67 Laws of Lagos State.

If you are having challenges with any of the eight (8) land documentations and regulatory processes mentioned below contact Akintunde Esan for further illuminations.

i. Preparation of Deed of Assignment : Contract of sale of land/property must be in writing

ii. Stamping of Deed of Assignment with Stamp Duties Authorities : An unstamped title document cannot be tendered in court as evidence.

iii. Application and processing of Certificate of Occupancy: Certificate of occupancy is superior to any other land title document and it validity can only be challenged in court.

iv. Application and processing of Governor’s Consent : The consent of the Governor to your Deed of Assignment, Leases or Mortgage must be obtained for the transaction to be valid in law.

v. Registration of title document with the Registrar of Title: Any document affecting land except a Will must be registered. An registered title document cannot be tendered as evidence in court.

vi. Approval of your building plan.

vii. Conduct searches in the Land Registry: To know whether the land is encumbered.

viii. Charting of Survey Plan at the Office of the Surveyor-General: To verify whether the land has been acquired by Government or the right of occupancy has been revoked or has the right setback.

Akintunde Esan

Managing Partner

Ase Olodumare Chambers

PROPERTY AND LAND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES 

Property and land documentation services provided by Ase Olodumare Chambers to domestic and international clients includes:

• Preparation of Deed of Assignment
• Stamping of Deed of Assignment with Stamp Duties Authorities
• Application and processing of Certificate of Occupancy
• Application and processing of Governor’s Consent
• Registration of title document with the Registrar of Title
• Application for approval of your building plan
• Due Diligence : Conduct searches on status of land in the Land Registry
• Charting of Survey Plans at the Office of the Surveyor-General
 

ILLUMINATIONS ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY  IN NIGERIA is a legal illumination of AKINTUNDE ESAN known as The LEGAL ADVISER ONLINE. Akintunde Esan is the Managing Partner & Principal Consultant @ ASE OLODUMARE CHAMBERS (Legal Practitioners/Consultants & Chartered Mediators)


Click to view

WHY IS GOVERNOR’S CONSENT NECESSARY FOR ALIENATION OF LAND IN NIGERIA