NO AUTHORITY OR INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO REVOKE YOUR TITLE TO LAND WITHOUT JUST CAUSE
By Sunday Adebayo Esq.
Land by its peculiar nature is a durable and sustainable asset and a formidable channel of wealth creation. Perhaps, this underscores why land and boundary dispute is a common phenomenon in the real estate ecosystem as many strive daily to acquire land for several purposes.
As a general rule, ownership and title to land in Nigeria is not absolute. By virtue of Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978 and Section 1(3) of the FCT Act 1976, ownership of all lands in each State of the federation is vested in the Governor of each state, while that of Federal Capital Territory is vested in the Government of the Federation and such Land shall be held in trust for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians. Additionally, all lands which immediately before the commencement of the Land use Act were vested in the Federal government shall continue to be so vested by virtue of section 49(1) of the Act.
From the foregoing, it is instructive to note that lands allocated by government to individuals or corporate entities are subject to certain terms and conditions guiding the use and ownership of the land. Often times, these terms and conditions are stated in the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) or other relevant title documents which include power to revoke the allocation upon breach or failure to comply with conditions attached thereto. (See Section 28(5) of the LUA).
However, revocation of title is neither a weapon of oppression nor an instrument for political vendetta. Every revocation of land must comply with due process of law, failure of which such revocation shall be set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
It is never the intendment of the law that allottees and beneficial owners of land should not be allowed to enjoy dividends of their investments or be left in perpetual state of fear of revocation at will by the government. Hence, the procedure and requirements for a valid revocation of a right of occupancy must be construed fortissimo contra preferentes; that is, the provisions of the law on revocation must be compiled with strictly.
The Courts have consistently maintained that strict compliance with the provisions of the Land use Act is mandatory for any valid revocation of a right of occupancy. In the case of Goldmark Nigeria Limited v Ibafon Company Limited [2012]10 NWLR(Pt 1308), the Court held that “where a statute specifically provides for a particular way in which Government or any party can obtain or revoke title, parties must comply with the said procedure in acquisition or revocation”. In other words, failure to comply with the strict provision of the law may render the entire process null and void.
By section 28(2) and (3) of LUA, title to land can only be revoked on account of overriding public interest or breach of any terms and conditions attached to the grant of allocation.
“Even when an allocation is to be revoked for other reasons such as inability to develop within timeframe, failure to pay necessary fees or breach of any terms, such revocation shall not be arbitrarily conducted. By section 28(6) and section 44 of the Land Use Act.“
It imperative to also note that revocation cannot be justified in the eyes of the law if same was carried out for the purpose of reallocating the land to another private individual. In other words, the Governor of a State or FCT minister as the case maybe, cannot revoke any title belonging to any private person and grant same to another private individual or corporate body other than government-owned bodies. In Osho v Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 157, the Court emphasized that the governor has no right to revoke a statutory right of occupancy and grant same to a private person or for any other purpose other than those specified under section 28 of the LUA.
Oftentimes, estate developers find themselves embroiled in issues of revocation of title due to change of government administration or failure to develop land within the prescribed timeframe which always has negative resultant effects on innocent subscribers.
While, the latter reason maybe justified depending on the circumstances, the former is legally invalid and unjustifiable. A mere change of government is not a yardstick to revoke an allocation that was lawfully granted by the previous governor or FCT minister as the case may be.
Thus, where title to land is revoked merely on ground of political vendetta, vindictiveness or related twists, holders and owners of such land may approach the Court for remedy and such revocation is bound to be set aside.
Even when an allocation is to be revoked for other reasons such as inability to develop within timeframe, failure to pay necessary fees or breach of any terms, such revocation shall not be arbitrarily conducted. By section 28(6) and section 44 of the Land Use Act, the law requires that adequate notice be given to title holders to remedy the breach and failure to give such notice and accord them reasonable time and fair hearing, may equally invalidate the revocation. See the Supreme Court decision in Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 61 SC and AG Bendel State v Aideyan(1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 646., where the apex Court held that failure to observe these procedural safeguards may render the revocation illegal, regardless of the breach.
Furthermore, where title is revoked for overriding public interest with the exception of breach of terms and conditions contained in the certificate of occupancy, developers who have already made substantial investments in infrastructure, planning, or preliminary works on the land are entitled to claim compensation for unexhausted improvements pursuant to Section 29 of the Land Use Act.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that while the Governor and FCT Minister have statutory powers under the extant laws to revoke title to land, such powers are not absolute and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Act.
It is safe to say the only legally recognized factor or ground upon which an allocation may be revoked is overriding public interest. Fortunately, the term public interest or purpose is equally defined in the Land Use Act and same cannot be subjected to arbitrary interpretation or application by any authority or individual.
Thus, where these statutory procedures are ignored, developers and landholders are entitled to enforce their rights in court and such revocations rest on shaky legal grounds that may be invalidated by the Court. Ultimately, the law on revocation of Land operates as a safeguard to ensure that neither political vendetta nor administrative arbitrariness deprives Nigerians of their title to land without just cause except where revocation becomes imperative in the interest of the general public.
Sunday Adebayo Esq.
Legal Practitioner & Associate Partner, Law Corridor
Member, Real Estate, Construction and Infrastructure (RCI) Practice Group
sundayadebayo@lawcorridor.org