Compiled by: Moruff O. Balogun, Esq.

1. ADERONPE V. ELERAN [2019]4 NWLR PT. 1661 PG. 11-12
On condition for validity of Certificate of Occupancy
By section 9 [1] [c] of the Land Use Act, 1978, there must have been an entitlement to a statutory right of occupancy before a certificate of occupancy can be given as evidence of such right.
Stated differently, where there is no right and a certificate is issued, such certificate is worthless.

2. ADERONPE V. ELERAN [2019] 4 NWLR PT. 1661 PG. 12.
On whether certificate of occupancy conclusive evidence of title.
A certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act, 1978 is not 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.

3. CIL RISK & ASSET MGT LTD. V. EKITI STATE GOVT. [2020]12 NWLR PT. 1738 PG. 225-226.
On determining validity of revocation of right of occupancy.
The germane and decisive questions to pose, with a view to determining the validity, vel non, of the revocation of a right of occupancy under the Land Use Act are:
Was the title holder served with a notice of revocation of his right of occupancy?
Was the public purpose or overriding public interest for such revocation spelt out in the notice?
Did the acquiring authority revoke the holder’s title in the Land, and thereupon reallocated same to a private individual or private entity?
Was the revocation signified under the hand of a public officer duly authorized in that behalf by the Governor?
Was the titleholder heard on the proposed revocation of his title?
Save for question number [c] that must be answered in the negative to render a revocation of a right of occupancy valid, if the answer to any of the other questions is in the negative, the revocation becomes invalid, ineffectual, null and void.

4. BAL ELECTRICAL CO. LTD. V. ADESINA [2020] 14 NWLR PT. 1745 PG. 555.
On whether a certificate of occupancy can be issued on a Land with a Subsisting right of occupancy.
Under the Land Use Act, 1978, a certificate of occupancy cannot be issued on a land with subsisting right of occupancy that has not been revoked and which does not belong to the holder of the Certificate of Occupancy. Thus, it is not in all cases that a subsequent grant of statutory right of occupancy extinguishes the previous extant title, whether customary or not.

5. FINNIH V. IMADE [1992]1 NWLR PT. 219 511 AT 533
Certificate of Occupancy does not operate retrospectively.
It is not the law that a certificate of Occupancy has retrospective effects, of best it operates if properly and validly issued, from the date of issue to a person who is entitled to it.

6. DAKAT V. DASHE [1997] 12 NWLR [PT. 531] 46 at 53.
Acquisition of Certificate of Occupancy by a trespasser.
“The appellant failed to satisfy the trial court by credible evidence that he was in exclusive possession of the farm land. His entry on the farm was no more than an act of trespass, which he wanted to legalise by procuring the certificate of occupancy and initiating the proceedings leading to this appeal.
The appellant will not secure possession by his act of trespass or by the certificate of occupancy procured after the said trespass”.

7. GAMBORUMA V. BORNO [1997] 3 NWLR [PT. 495] 530 at 541.
Can a person who has not proved title to a piece of land rely merely on Certificate of Occupancy to succeed.
It is settled law that any person without title to a parcel of land in respect to which a Certificate of Occupancy was issued acquired no right of interest which he did not have.
It is therefore not surprising that the respondent had to plead and prove how his interest in the land had arisen before he applied for and was granted Certificate of Occupancy.

8. ATTA V. EXANAH [2000] 11 NWLR [PT. 678] 363 at 385
Certificate of Occupancy as a prima facie evidence of title.
It is settled law that a certificate is only a prima facie evidence of title or right of occupancy in favour of the person whose name is on the certificate of occupancy. Where a rebuttal is raised on that presumption the trial court is bound to examine all the surrounding circumstances including the nature of completing claims, why the certificate of occupancy is issued in that person’s name and any other issued of law or fact on why a rebuttal of that presumption is raised.

9. KYARI V. ALKALI [2001] 11 NWLR [PT. 724] 412 at 440.
Classification of rights of occupancy created under the Land Use Act 1978.
For a better appreciation of the issue, it is necessary to observe that under the Land Use Act, 1978, two types of rights of occupancy were thereby created. These comprise of statutory Right of Occupancy and customary right of occupancy. Both statutory right of occupancy and customary right of occupancy are of two classifications.
The first is the statutory right of occupancy granted by the state Governor pursuant to Section 5[1] [a] of the Act and the customary right of occupancy granted by the Local Government under Section 6 [1][a] of the Act.
The second classification is the 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.

10. ESO V. ADEYEMI [1994] 4 NWLR [PT. 340] 558 at 573.
Condition for validity of a Certificate of Occupancy
A person in whose name a certificate of occupancy has been issued, can only validly hold unto it if he can show that he legitimately acquired the property. In other words, he should be able to show that the certificate was issued in his favour, after he had properly acquired the property through the persons who were the holders.
For the certificate of occupancy to be a valid one, there must not be in existence at that time, it was issued a customary owner whose title has not been revoked.

11. TORONTO V. UKPATA & ORS. [2017] 12 SCM [PT. 2] PG. 783-784.
Can the Governor issue certificate of Occupancy to a tenant or sub-lessee.
A Governor cannot issue a certificate of Occupancy in evidence of right of occupancy or title that does not exist or subsist in the person to whom the Certificate was issued. The Governor would therefore act utra vires if he issues a Certificate of occupancy to a tenant or sub-lessee and thereby converts his tenancy or sub-lease to a right of occupancy, extinguishing arbitrally the existing right of occupancy that vests exclusively in the landlord or the lessor.

12. Mohammed V. Farmers Supply Co. [KDS] Ltd. [2019]17 NWLR PT. 1701 PG. 198.
On whether information about existence or revocation of Certificate of Occupancy within public domain.
The revocation or otherwise of a Certificate of Occupancy is a matter within public domain, which upon diligent search at the relevant land office or registry, any member of the public can easily establish.

13. BUREMOH V. AKANDE [2000] 15 NWLR PT. 690 PG. 260
Fraud vitiates title
A certificate of occupancy founded on the fraudulent sale of property is not evidence of title, since fraud vitiates title.

14. YAKUBU V. YAUROYEL [2014] 5 8[1]NSCQR PG. 197- 198.
On whether a certificate of occupancy issued as a result of mistake of the official concerned is fake.
A certificate of occupancy issued as a result of mistake or inadvertence on the part of the official concerned cannot, with adequate reasoning, be said to be fake and fraudulent. This is more so as no fraudulent intent has been traceable to the door-step of the appellant.

15. ATIKU ADERONPE V. ELERAN [2018]76 NSCQR PG. 226.
On when a Certificate of Occupancy is said to be valid.
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.
The Land Use Allocation Committee is a statutory body established by section 2[2] of the Land Use Act and the appointment of members of the committee is made by the Governor. The beneficiary of allocation of land by this body is holder of statutory right of occupancy under section 5 of the Land Use Act. It follows then that no other person can be granted a right of occupation in respect of the same land unless section 28 of the Land Use Act is fully complied with. Any other right of occupancy purportedly grant null and void.

16. OTUKPO V. JOHN [2012]7 NWLR PT. 1299 PG. 357 at 38.
Certificate of occupancy and the root of title.
In order to succeed in a claim of title to land, a party who holds a certificate of occupancy will need to show his root or seller has to show valid title to the land over which the purchaser secured his certificate of occupancy can only be valid if the root of title originates from the customary owners of the property.

17. SACHIA V. KWANDE [1990]5 NWLR [PT. 152] 548 at 558.
Revocation of certificate of occupancy.
An appropriate authority vested with the power to allocate land to persons under the Land Use Act, 1978 or other similar legislation, may revoke a certificate of occupancy granted in relation to a particular parcel of Land if it subsequently discovers that the allocation was made in error or as a result of a mistake on the part of the appropriate authority.

18. OBORO V. R.S.H & P.D.A [1997] 9 NWLR [PT. 521] 425 at 444.
On compulsory acquisition
Revocation or cancellation of a citizen’s right of occupancy amounts to compulsory acquisition of the said property which must be for a public purpose where the property is taken away from a private citizen under these circumstances, the lease of such property cannot be granted to a commercial company or another individual.

19. OBIKOYA & SONS LTD. V. THE GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE. [1987]1 NWLR [PT. 50] 385.
Contents at notice of revocation of right of occupancy.
Under the Land Use Act, 1978, the reason for revoking a person’s right of occupancy must be stated in the notice of revocation notwithstanding that the Act does not expressly state that the specific ground of the revocation must be stated in the notice.
It is also the law that where a right of occupancy is stated to be revoked for public purpose, there is need to spell out the public purpose[s] in the notice of revocation.

20. KARI V. GANARAM & ORS [1997] 2 NWLR [PT. 488] 380 at 401-402.
Temporary right of occupancy vis-à-vis statutory right of occupancy.
A temporary right of occupancy cannot in my opinion, amount to the same thing in law, as a statutory right of occupancy. A temporary right of occupancy, as its title implies, is essentially temporary, limited or transient in nature. It amounts to no more than a bare licence to occupy land on temporary and sometimes, short term basis and generally confers no legal estate. This is unlike a statutory right of occupancy which is clearly not temporary in nature, confers more extensive rights on the holder, is by far superior to a temporary right of occupancy and usually confers on the holders a legal estate in and over the property in question. Besides, unlike a statutory right of occupancy , which shall be for a definite term, the duration of a temporary right of occupancy need not be for any fixed duration.

Courtesy:
Moruff O. Balogun Esq.
Ijebu Ode, Ogun State.
08052871414
09121207712 [WHATSAPP]