[8]

THE LAND USE ACT 1978

From time immemorial through the period of agriculture to the period of industrial
development, land has remained the most valuable property in the life of man and his
development. It is a source of wealth to those who have it and the mother of all properties. In
other words, virtually all the basic needs of human existence are land dependent. In view of
the importance and usefulness of land to man and his development as well as the
development of his society, every person generally desires to acquire and own a portion of
land to achieve the various ends for which the land is meant. Therefore, to make land in
Nigeria available to all and to ensure that land is acquired and put to a proper use for the
needed development, governments during and after colonial period enacted laws to govern
the use or administration of land in Nigeria.
Prior to the enactment of the Land Use Act in 1978, there were three main sources of land
law: Customary Law (varied from custom to custom), English received law (which comprises
of the common law, doctrine of equity and statutes of General application), and local
legislation. There was also a duality of Land Use System in the southern and northern parts of
the country.
The Parliament of the then Northern Nigeria passed the Land Tenure Law in 1962, which
governed all interest affecting land. The Land Tenure law vested all land in the governor who
was to hold land in trust for the people and only rights of occupancy (not rights of ownership)
could be granted to other people. The consent of the governor was required before any
alienation of interest in land could take place.
In the then Southern Nigeria, however, customary system of land tenure governed land
interest and land was owned by communities, families and individuals in freehold. Land was
acquired either by inheritance, first settlement, conveyance, gift, outright purchase or long
possession. There were also crown lands, which were acquired by the British Crown by virtue
of treaty, cession, convention or agreement. When Nigeria attained independence, such
crown land became known as state land.
Notwithstanding the existence of laws regulating land, the problems of land tenure and land
administration persisted both in the Northern and Southern Nigeria. There were new
problems such as land racketeering and speculations. Exorbitant compensations were
demanded by landowners whenever the government acquired land for development. Thus,
acquisition of land by government or individuals was becoming almost impossible in Nigeria.
In fact, one of the major factors that was said to be a stumbling block against efficient
implementation of the Second Development Plan 1975-1980, was lack of land for
development project. To break this barrier and monopolies of landlords, the Federal Military
Government set up some panels to consider how best to solve the problems associated with
land tenure and administration in Nigeria. The Report of one of these Panels i.e., the Land
Use Panel of 1977 eventually formed the basis of the Land Use Act No. 6 of 1978.
Summary the Land Use Act of 1978
The Land Use Decree (now Land Use Act) was promulgated on 29th of March 1978
following the recommendations of a minority report of a panel appointed by the Federal
1
Military Government of the time to advise on future land policy. With immediate effect, it
vested all land in each state of the Federation in the governor of that state (Fed. Rep. of
Nigeria, 1978).
The Act vests all land comprised in the territory of each state (except land vested in the
Federal Government for its agencies) solely in the hands of the military governors of the state
who would hold such land in trust for the people.
The promulgation of this Act was as a result of two main factors:
 Firstly, was the diversity of customary laws on land tenure and
difficulty in applying the various customs of the different people.
 The second factor was the rampant practice in southern Nigeria with
regards to fraudulent sales of land. The same land would be sold to
different persons at the same time giving rise to so many litigations.
The Act distinguishes throughout between urban and non-urban (rural) land.
 In urban areas (to be so designated by the Governor of a state), land
was to come under the control and management of the Governor.

 In rural areas it was to fall under the appropriate local government.

 “Land Use and Allocation Committees”, appointed for each state by
the Governor, were to advise on the administration of land in urban
areas.
 “Land Allocation Advisory Committees” were to exercise equivalent
functions with regard to rural land.
The Act envisaged that “rights of occupancy”, which would appear to replace all previous
system or rules of inheritance to land, would form the basis upon which land was to be held.
These rights were of two kinds: statutory and customary.
 “Statutory rights of occupancy” were to be granted by the Governor
and related principally to urban areas.
 “Customary right of occupancy”, according to the Act, means the right
of a person or community lawfully using or occupying land in
accordance with customary law and includes a customary right of
occupancy granted by Local Government under this Act.
Local governments were empowered to grant customary rights of occupancy to any person or
organisation for agricultural, residential and other purposes with the proviso that grants of
land for agricultural or grazing purposes should not exceed 500 or 5000 hectares respectively
without the consent of the State Governor. With the minor exception of land subject to
Federal or State claims, the Act also empowered the local government to enter upon, use and
occupy for public purposes any land within the area of its jurisdiction and to revoke any
customary right of occupancy on any such land. The approval of the local government was to
be required for the holder of a customary right of occupancy to alienate that right.
2
The Act prohibits the alienation by assignment, mortgage, transfer or possession, sub-lease or
otherwise, of customary right of occupancy without the consent of either the Governor or the
Local Government as the case may be. It also prohibits the alienation of statutory right of
occupancy without the due consent of the Governor (Land Use Act, 1978: section 21
subsections a and b).
Governors were empowered to revoke rights of occupancy for reasons of “overriding public
interest.” Such reasons included alienation by an occupier without requisite consent or
approval; a breach of the conditions governing occupancy; or the requirement of the land by
Federal, State, or local government for public purposes. Only in the last of these cases would
any compensation be due to the holder, and then only for the value of unexhausted
improvements on the land and not for the land itself.
There are four main objectives derivable from the Act and these are:
1. to effect structural change in the system of land tenure;
2. to achieve fast economic and social transformation;
3. to negate economic inequality caused by the appropriation of rising
land values by land speculators and land holders; and
4. to make land available easily and cheaply, to both the government and
private individual developers.
Nature of the Right of Occupancy:
The Act did not specifically define a right of occupancy it introduced The nature of right of
occupancy under the Act is that all forms of ownership, both under common law and
customary law have been vacated or extinguished at the commencement of the Act. Hence,
the former private owner became automatically divested of his title which was converted to a
mere right of occupancy. The Supreme Court said that much in the case of Surufatu Salami v.
Summonu Oke (1987) 9-11 S.C. 43; as per Kawu, J.S.C. who delivered the lead judgment of
the Apex Court:
Absolute ownership of land is no longer possible since according to the
provisions of Section 1 of the Act all land comprised in the Federation are
hereby vested in the Governor of the State and such land shall be held in
trust and administered for the use and common benefits of all Nigerians in
accordance with the provision of this Decree.
Land Use. Act, 1978
i. Structure of the Act – Eight Parts I-VIII and fifty-three sections
ii. Why the Act was enacted (ss. 1-4)
iii. Nationalization of land by the L.U. Act (ss. 1-4)
iv. Judicial Support for Nationalization s. 47, Sections 4(8); 6; 10 &
247(3) CFRN 1999 (as amended).
v. The Act’s Cadastral System ss. 1(3), 4(8), 6
vi. Objectives of the Act

3
 vii. Problems of Implementation
General Principles of the Act Parts I & II (ss. 1-20)
a. Right of Occupancy under the Act (ss. 5-15)
b. Certificate of Occupancy (s. 9)
c. Grant of Right of Occupancy (Governor’s Consent) (ss. 5-15, 21-27)
d. Revocation – section 28 – Principle of revocation
e. Overriding public interest under section 28(2) LUA 1978
f. Section 34(1) & (2) LUA 1978 – option to accept resettlement in
case of revocation of right of occupancy
g. Definition of developed land (Section 50 LUA)
h. Compulsory Acquisition
i. Notice of Revocation
j. Effect of non-compliance with section 28
k. On status of C of O as prima facie evidence of title to land
l. On legal basis of C of O
m. On whether a holder of statutory right of occupancy can alienate same
without first obtaining Governor’s consent
n. On whether the L.U.A. preserved the right of both the customary
landlord and customary tenant with respect to land held by them.
o. On who should seek and obtain consent of the Governor.
p. On public and official nature of the powers conferred on a State
Governor under the L.U.A
q. On purport of section 22 of the LUA
r. Devolution of right of occupancy on death (ss. 24 & 25).
Cases
Statutory Right of Occupancy
Tenlola v. Ojubunkun (1999) 5 NWLR Pt. 602, p. 220; A.G. Rivers v. Ohochukwu (2004) 6
NWLR Pt. 869, p.340; Titiloye v. Olupo (1991) 7 NWLR Pt. 205, p.519 (SC); Adeniran v.
Alao (1992) 2 NWLR Pt. 223, p.350; Garkon v. Ugochukwu Chem. Ind. (1993) 6 NWLR
Pt.297, p.35 (SC); (Grant of statutory right extinguishes all rights existing in the land).
Ohenhen v. Uhumuavbi (1995) 6 NWLR Pt.401, p.303; Dabo v. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR
Pt.923, p.181.
Certificate of Occupancy
Finnih v. Imade (1992) 1 NWLR Pt.219, p.511 (SC); Usman v. Joda (1998) 13 NWLR
Pt.582, p.374; Asheik v. Bornu State Government (2012) 9 NWLR Pt. 1304, p.1; Edohoket v.
Inyang (2010) 7 NWLR Pt.1192, p.25; Iloporo Owo v. Lagos State Government (2001) 11
NWLR Pt.723, p.237; Edebiri v. Daniel (2009) 8 NWLR Pt.1142, p.33 (Certificate of
Occupancy does not confer title); Madu v. Madu (2008) 6 NWLR Pt.1083, p.296; Otukpo v.
John (2012) 7 NWLR Pt.1299, p.357 (SC); Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 2 FWLR Pt.488,
p.3513; Agboola v. U.B.A. Plc (2011) 11 NWLR Pt.1258, p.375; Kyari v. Alkali (2001) 11
4
NWLR Pt.724 p.412; Darbar v. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR Pt.923 p.181; In Agboola’s case,
the Supreme Court stated that a certificate of occupancy properly issued raises the issue of
ownership and exclusive possession.
Grant of Land
Tenile v. Awani (2001) 12 NWLR Pt.728 p.726; Ogunsina v. Matami (2001) 9 NWLR Pt.718,
p.286.
Devolution
Iroagbara v. Ufomadu (2009) 1 NWLR Pt.1153, p.587 (SC)
Legality of Government’s Compulsory Acquisition of Land and payment Of
Compensation
Thinking Point: Can government demolish my house and take my land without
compensation? Yes, government can demolish your house and take your land! Albeit,
government will compensate you for all your expenditure on the land in certain
circumstances. The circumstances and steps therein varies. I advise you to get a copy of the
Land Use Act of 1978 from any bookshop to understand and appreciate land contracts and
transactions in Nigeria, as a whole. A copy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999 (as amended) will also help. Then read the cases decide by the Nigerian Courts.
It is an inalienable fundamental human right of all persons above 21 years old to acquire and
own land in any part of Nigeria (See Section 43 of Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 7 of the Land Use Act, 1978). On this, a man from
Bayelsa State can acquire and own land in Bauchi State while a woman from Cross Rivers
State owns land in Lagos State. Even a foreigner can own and acquire land in any part of
Nigeria. Since the law reads “persons” it means both Nigerians and Non-Nigerians, juristic
and “juridical” beings, human beings and corporate beings, (companies, associations,
churches, corporations, societies and incorporated trustees). Our constitution went further to
state that no movable or immovable (land and developments on it) can be taken compulsorily
in any part of Nigeria except in some specified manners and purposes (See, Section 44 of
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)). The referred “specified
manners and purposes” will be explained later. All the lands in Nigeria (the 36 states) are
vested on the Governors of each state and that of the Federal Capital Territory or any Federal
Government ministry, department or agency in any state is on the President of Nigeria (often
delegated to his various Ministers). (See, Section 1 and Section 51 subsection 2 of the Land
Use Act, 1978). In simple, whatever a Governor can do on land matters, the President of
Nigeria or his ministers can do same for lands under their administration. Land is vested on
the Governors to hold the land in trust and administer same, for the use and common good
and benefit of all Nigerians. Hence, land is not vested on a governor as an individual rather to
the office of the Governor. Most governors delegate their powers to use and administer state
land to their Commissioners for Land and Survey. Please note that, Federal Government
owns the lands in states being used by federal government agencies, departments, corporation,
ministries, quarters, estates, commissions and bodies. Dealings over such federal government
lands are being administered by the President of Nigeria through his Ministers of the various
ministries and not the states’ governors, (see, Section 51 subsection 2 of the Land Use Act,
1978).
5
On the foundation of the above, it is safe to reiterate that all lands are vested on the governors
who give leases to interested persons (Nigerians and Non-Nigerians, human and corporate
beings). So, people don’t own land in Nigeria rather have leases (often for a term of 99 years)
from the government. Government is the sole landlord/landowner of all lands in Nigeria and
grants “Rights of Occupancy” through a “Certificate of Occupancy” to interested persons
(human or corporate) by land allocation. Have you ever wondered why no person in Nigeria
has a “Certificate of Ownership” of land? Why do people pay rent (ground rent) to
government? Why do people need the consent of a Governor to sell, lease, mortgage or sublet
land in a state? They are so because people in Nigeria are tenants to the landlord’s of
Nigeria (Federal, State and Local Governments), who issue certificate of occupancy and
yearly receipt upon receiving ground rents and equally give consent where necessary in all
deals over land.
Powers of a Governor Over Lands in a State
Since lands in a state are vested on governors, governors have lots of power to exercise in
managing and administering the entire land for the benefit of Nigerians. Understanding the
powers of a governor over land matters will help us find and identify the limits to their
powers (especially as it affects compulsory acquisition and compensation). Below are some
of the powers of a governor over land matters:
1. Power to Grant and Revoke Rights of Occupancy and Easements.
As a real owner of lands, a governor has the exclusive right to grant statutory right of
occupancy to any person over any part of the state (urban and rural areas) for any purpose
whatsoever. A Governor also has powers to grant easement appurtenant, (street ways,
avenues etc). The grant of right of occupancy must be for a definite term/period on specified
terms and conditions. Most states offer grants for a term of 55 or 99 years after which the
right of occupancy reverts back on the government while the former certified occupier may
seek for a renewal of term. Please note that Local government Chairmen have rights over
lands in the rural area although subject to the exclusive right of governors. Hence, a local
government has power to grant any person a customary rights of occupancy for a defined
period of time. (See, Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Land Use Act, 1978).Most grants of right of
occupancy are for a rent; the occupiers are expected to pay yearly rent to government. Please
note that the governor has powers to grant right of occupancy free of rent or at a reduced rent
where that will be in the interest of the public, (see Section 17 of the Land Use Act, 1978).
A governor equally has powers to revoke grants of rights of occupancy made by him or his
predecessors. Failure to observe terms and condition of a grant, failure to pay rent, or the use
of land against its specified purposes or the need of land by government for over-riding
public interest are all possible grounds for revocation of grant. (See, Sections 28 and 38 of
the Land Use Act, 1978)
2. Power to Issue Certificate of Occupancy
As stated above, governors are land owners while the other persons in a state are “land
occupiers” (tenants to government). Land occupiers have exclusive right and possession over
their lands against any other person whatsoever. To identify, announce and authenticate, the

6
occupancy of any person (human and corporate) the state government will issue Statutory
Right of occupancy over lands both in urban and rural areas. A certificate of occupancy
contains a clear description of the land in question, details of the occupier, the details of
government, duration of the approved occupancy, rent to be paid yearly and the purpose of
the land (ie, whether it is for residential or commercial, industrial or agriculture). Hence, it is
justifiable to state, that a certificate of occupancy is an abridged lease agreement between
government and a person over a specified land. It contains the terms and conditions which
any occupier undertakes and must observe to continue his occupation at the pleasure of
government. (See, Sections 8 and 10 of the Land Use Act, 1978)
Upon granting of a right of occupancy or an application by an occupier of a customary right
of occupancy to his state government, a certificate of occupancy shall be issued to such
person upon his payment of appropriate fees. Certificate of occupancy is a prima facia
evidence of possession of land. Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to any person,
such a person has a better and higher title above and beyond any other person; (See, Section
9 of the Land Use Act, 1978). Apart from government, a certificate of occupancy negates
and invalidates the rights, powers and privileges of other persons over a land including the
indigenes of such land. (See, Section 5 Sub-Section 2 of the Land Use Act, 1978)
3. Power to Enter and Inspect
Just like any true landlord will do, a governor (including any public officer duly authorised
by the governor) has the power to enter upon any land in the state. Such inspection is to
ensure strict observance of the terms and conditions of the occupation which the tenant
undertook to observe at all times. Such inspection ensures that no industrial plant is erected in
a residential area or a residential house in a commercial zone and avoids the erection of
unapproved structures. It is upon this power and other laws that the agents of Ministries of
land, environment and other public office holders rest on to enter and inspect people’s
property.
Please note that such entry and inspection must be done during the day time. The occupier of
such land is expected by the law to permit and give free access to the governor and the public
officers (see Section 11 of the Land Use Act, 1978).
4. Power to Grant and Cancel Licenses
Being the exclusive owner of all lands in a state, a governor has powers to grant licenses to
any person(s) to enter upon any land to which no one has a statutory right of occupancy to, or
mining lease, to remove/extract stone, clay, sand, gravel and other building materials from
such land. A governor cannot grant such license over an area exceeding 400 hectares. A
governor issues such license for a specified period of time and upon specified terms and
conditions. A governor equally has power to cancel licenses wherein the licensee (person(s)
granted license) fails to observe the terms and condition of his license, (see Section 12 of the
Land Use Act, 1978).
5. Power to Consent and Reject Land Transactions
In the eyes of law, the landlords of the lands across the 36 states of Nigeria are the respective
governors of the states of the federation of Nigeria. They are vested with the lands, to
7
administer and manage them for the good of all, hence they decide who to “lease” such lands
to, who further gets a “sub-lease” and “sub-underlease”. A governor of a state is the only
person (whether in person or through his commissioners and others agents) that can consent
or reject the sale, assignment, sublet, transfer, mortgage and change of ownership of any land
in the state. Any of the above transactions ever done without an express and written consent
of the governor of the states wherein the land is located is illegal and null. It is expected that,
the land agreements/instruments (deed of sale, deed of mortgage, deed of gift, deed of
assignments, deed of transfer and registerable Power of Attorney, etc. ) are sent to the
concerned Governor (Commissioner for Land) to peruse, consent or reject land transaction.
Consent of a governor must be in writing and often on land agreement itself. (See, sections 21,
22, 23 and 26 of the Land Use Act, 1978) Even after payment of money, taking of
possession of land and building on same, a land transaction is not complete until governor
consents to such land transaction. To be on the safe side, in practice lawyers should protect
the interest of their land purchasing clients by inserting a “Rectification Clause” in their land
agreements/instruments. A Rectification Clause is an undertaking by a land seller to a land
buyer that he the seller will repay and indemnify the buyer all his money and costs if
governor fails to consent to their land transaction.
There is a wrong practice in existence: land agreements (deeds of sale, assignment, purchase,
transfer, mortgage, gift and power of attorney etc) do not need or require the stamps and
signatures of Court staff (Commissioners of Oath, Court Clerk and Registrars etc). Such
stamps and signatures are useless and enrich court officers who do not remit such fund to
government. Do not be deceived the Consent, signature and stamp of a Governor or his
Commissioner for lands are not same with those of a mere court staff referred above. Many
people have suffered from the above deceit, consult a good lawyer. No doubt, in special cases
the name, address and signature of a Notary Public or a Commissioner of Oath with date are
expected on a land agreement ONLY where a party (buyer or seller)is an illiterate, in view of
a Jurat. Please, further note that consent of a governor is not needed over land transactions
done through court sales (like public auction done by an order of court).
6. Power to Demand and Sue for Rent
Like every other lease agreement, a Governor being the “LESSOR” (person to grant lease)
expect rent from his “LESSEE” (person to whom lease is granted). All persons having rights
of occupancy are expected to pay rent as at when due subject to the terms and conditions
evidenced on their certificates of occupancy. Right of occupancy can be revoked by a
governor where a holder of right of occupancy fails to pay his rent as at when due (See,
Sections 28 and 38 of the Land Use Act, 1978).
To recover rent, a Governor through and in the name of his Chief Land officer
(Commissioner for land) or any of his appointees can institute a legal action in a magistrate
Court of competent jurisdiction, (See, Section 42 of the Land Use Act, 1978). Owing to the
immunity of governors from being sued or suing both in civil and criminal proceedings, they
cannot sue for such recovery themselves, (See, Section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)).

8
7. Power to Compulsorily Acquire land, Demolish/Convert Property and Take Over
Land.
Yes, it is part of our constitutional rights to own and use land and landed property in any part
of Nigeria irrespective of our tribes, colour, birth, religion, political parties and height(See
Sections 42 and 43 of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as
amended)).The constitution went further to assure all persons that no property shall be
compulsorily taken possession of or acquired compulsorily except in the manner and for the
purpose prescribed by a law, (See Section 44 of Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The Land Use Act of 1978 is one of the laws that in line with the
constitution, provides “the manner and the purpose” for compulsory acquisition of land and
property thereon. Consequently, by the joint provisions of the Constitution and Land Use Act,
lands and the property on them can be acquired compulsorily by government provided that
certain manner and procedures are adhered to and for certain reasons. Please note that
government MUST observe the set down manners and purpose for a compulsory acquisition
of land before such acquisition can be valid. Where procedures were not observed; such act
can be challenged in a court of law, for not even the government is above the law. The set
down manner and purpose are explained below.
Legal Grounds and Means of Compulsory Acquisition of Land by Government
As shown above, it is your right to own land in any part of Nigeria and be equally protected
from compulsory acquisition of such by government. Although for specific purposes and in
given manner government has powers to compulsorily acquire any land. Note that none
observance of the legal grounds and means for compulsory acquisition of land by
government, invalidates such compulsory acquisition. Below are the special cases under
which government can exercise such powers;
1. Legal Ground for Compulsory Acquisition of Land
“Overriding public interest” is the sole and only purpose under the Land Use Act 1978 upon
which a governor can compulsorily acquire the land of any person. “Overriding public
interest” arises where;(1.)a statutory right of occupancy holder sells, mortgages, transfers or
alienates his title without a prior consent of governor as demanded by the law or (2.) there is
a requirement of land by Federal Government or State Government or even Local
Government for a “Public Purposes” in the federation or state respectively (See, Section 28 of
the Land Use Act, 1978). With reference to the provisions of Section 51 subsection 1
paragraphs (a) to(h)of the Land Use Act, 1978, “Public Purposes” include things that are: for
exclusive government use or general use; for use by government companies, corporations,
ministries, departments and agencies; for sanitation of environment, urban or rural planning
and development; for mining, oil pipelines purposes and extraction of building materials; for
economic, industrial or agricultural developments and for construction of railways, road or
other public works undertaken or provided by government. Please note that the “extraction
of building materials” is a “public purpose” for compulsory acquisition of lands under
customary right of occupancy, only. Unfortunately, the interpretation of the words “Public
purpose” is too wide that many undemocratic governors have hibernated under them to wind-
up businesses of their opponents and enrich their own personal businesses. Under the two

9
vague words, a governor can compulsorily acquire someone’s gigantic cement company and
turn it into swimming pool and bar while he turns a privately owned university into his hotel.
Note that a governor needs not give any further reasons or report for his compulsory
acquisition to any person or thing; once he tags it for “overriding public interest”.
In the light of Section 44 of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as
amended) the other grounds among which land/property can be compulsorily acquired are:
a). where there is prompt payment of compensation on such land/property; b). where the
holder of right of occupancy of such compulsorily acquired property is afforded right of
access for determination of his interest and compensation in a court of law; c). where
land/property is in a dangerous state or injurious to the health of human beings, plants or
animals; d). where land/property relates to enemy of state e) where it is for execution of court
judgment; or f). for imposition of tax, rate or duty etc.
2. Legal Means of Compulsory Acquisition of Land
Once the need for a compulsory land acquisition is for overriding public interest, the means is
simple and easy. Where Governor wants to compulsorily acquire land, the governor (or
through his staff) is to issue a “NOTICE” to the holder of the right of occupancy of the
desired land. The Notice must declare that the land is required by the government for public
purpose. At the issuance of such notice the right of occupancy will be revoked. Once such is
done, the governor has compulsorily acquired the land. There cannot be a valid compulsory
acquisition of land without a “Notice” to the holder of the right of occupancy, (See, Section
28 sub section 4 of the Land Use Act, 1978).
Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land
If you lend a car to a friend for a specified period of time but you suddenly need the car after
your friend had filled its fuel tank; you may pay your friend for his unexhausted petrol. You
will not pay for your car but for the petrol. This is what happens in compulsory land
acquisition for public interest and payment of compensation. The lands are vested on the
governors of states, who sub-lease same to people who in turn pay annual ground rent to
them. Where a governor wants to compulsorily take back (acquire) land, the Governor need
not pay anything to any person for the land. Rather the governor MUST pay for the
improvements, developments, structures and expenditures on such land. Compensation is for
legally acquired lands and not fake or unapproved land titles; you cannot benefit from your
own illegality. So, note that government does not compensate for land rather for the
unexhausted improvements/developments on lands legally and duly acquired by its
holders/occupiers. Where a compulsorily acquired land is just a bare land no compensation
can be paid. Land is and will always be that of government while the improvements on land
are yours and entitles you to compensation. Hear me very well, no matter the length, width
and largeness of your land, no government will compensate you unless there is an
improvement/development on your land. (See, Section 29 of the Land Use Act,
1978).Improvements “means anything of any quality permanently attached to the land,
directly resulting from the expenditure of capital or labour by an occupier or any person
acting on his behalf, and increasing the productive capacity, the utility or the amenity thereof
and includes buildings”, (See, Section 51 of the Land Use Act, 1978). Improvement/
10
expenditures includes; building, installation (mechanical apparatus), amount of the
replacement cost of the building, crops on land, plantations of long lived crops or trees,
fencing, wells, roads and irrigation or reclamations works, but does not include the result of
ordinary cultivation other than growing produce.
Government does not just pay for improvements/development made on land rather for the
value of the unexhausted improvements. It means that government will consider
“Depreciation” (wear and tear) on the improvements while calculating compensation to be
paid. So, government will pay you for the unexpired, unfinished, unexhausted part or value of
your improvements. Well, government employs professional valuers to assess the
value/worth of improvements to be paid and interest therein. Government will pay interest on
delayed compensation at the prevailing bank rate placed by Central Bank of Nigeria.
Documentary evidence (receipts, invoices, bills and quotations) is welcomed to aid in
assessment of payable compensation.(See, Section 29 subsection 4 of the Land Use Act,
1978)
Where residential buildings were erected on a compulsorily acquired land, government may
offer residential building(s)/settlement in another area as a reasonable alternative
accommodation to the affected persons in place of monetary compensation. If the value of the
new settlement is higher than the compensation government would have paid, such
excess/extra in value will be considered as loan to the persons, which they must pay to
government. Anyone who takes government’s settlement/residential building (reasonable
alternative accommodation) cannot seek for monetary compensation; his right has been
waived, (See, Section 33 of the Land Use Act, 1978). Where compensation is payable as
shown above, it shall be paid to the holder of the right of occupancy. Where the land in
question is owned by a community, Governor may direct compensation to be paid to the
community or to the chief/traditional ruler of the community or into a fund set aside by the
Governor for the benefit of the community. (See, Section 29 subsection 3 of the Land Use
Act, 1978).
Where one is not paid his compensation at all or has any challenge concerning the rightful
persons to be paid compensation, he can seek redress in a State High Court only and not a
customary court, area or magistrate court. (See, Section 39 of the Land Use Act,
1978). Please it is very important to note that NO court in Nigeria has powers and
jurisdiction to entertain and deliberate over a case concerning the amount or adequacy of
any compensation paid or even to be paid. (See, Section 47 subsection 2 of the Land Use
Act, 1978). Hence, you cannot approach a court to challenge the amount paid to you by
government as a compensation for your improvements on a land but you can approach a court
to determine persons entitled to compensation. No matter how harsh it may appear, it is our
law until same is amended by the National Assembly.
As seen above, government can compulsorily acquire any land but must do so cautiously
within the confines of law and procedure. Government MUST pay compensation or provide
an alternative accommodation where there are unexhausted improvements/developments on
a compulsorily acquired land. Where government is reluctant or fails to compensate, the
persons concerned have legal remedy in the State High Court.

11
What then can be classified as overriding public interest? In Olatunji v. Military Governor
of Oyo State(1994) LPELR-14116 the Court of Appeal, per Salami JCA (as he then was)
held as follows:
The Appellant can legitimately protest the acquisition if the purpose for
which the land was being acquired was not within the confines of
definition of public purpose as defined in Section 50 of the Act. The
acquiring authority failed to state the public purpose for which the
property was acquired. He kept it up his sleeve. In this connection
Waddington, J., said in the case of Chief Commissioner, Eastern province
v. Ononye 17 NLR 142 at 143 thus- “the notice merely states “for public
purposes” and I find it difficult to understand why the particular public
purpose is not stated. When the matter comes into court it has to be
admitted that there is no public purpose involved at all; and the impression
is liable to be conveyed, no doubt erroneously, that there was something
ulterior in the failure to make the purpose public.
The Court went further to hold that the holder of land compulsorily acquired by government
is entitled to know the ground(s) for the government’s acquisition of his interest in the land.
The learned justice of the Court of Appeal further explains that:
The appellant is not entitled to speculate or fish for the ground or grounds
for acquiring his interest in the property in dispute. The best he would do
in the circumstance is to lie patiently in waiting until the acquiring
authority manifest[s] its true intention. Before manifestation of the
acquiring authority’s intention he is helpless not only himself would be
helpless the court to which he has constitutional access to would equally
be left in complete helplessness. See Olatunji v. Military Governor of Oyo
State (Supra) at p. 31, paras. B-G
Also, a land compulsorily acquired for public purpose can be vitiated where it was
subsequently diverted to serve private need. If a property is ostensibly acquired for public
purpose and it is subsequently discovered that it has directly or indirectly been diverted to
serve private needs, the acquisition can be vitiated. The acquiring authority cannot ‘rob Peter
to pay Paul’ by divesting one citizen of his interest in a property only to vest same in another.
If the acquiring authority can no longer find a public purpose for the land so acquired the
only avenue open to it is to de-acquire it and let the same revert to the person in whom it
was already vested. See A. O. Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt.
184) 157; Chief A. O. Lawson v. Chief A. A. Ajibulu (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 195) 44; Chief
Ereku v. The Military Governor, Mid-Western State of Nigeria (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 2) 163,
Ajao & Anor. v. Sole Administrator for Ibadan City Council (1971) 1 NMLR 74.
What is the Nature of Service Contemplated Under Land Use Act 1978?
Personal Service is also sine qua non of revocation of interest in land and cannot be
dispensed with because it is after the service in the manner prescribed in the legislation that
the right of holder of the right of occupancy is revoked. The requirement of publication of
notice of revocation in the gazette constitutes a notice to the whole world and is not a
12
substitute for the personal service enjoined by the legislation. In Olatunji v. Military
Governor of Oyo State (1994) LPELR-14116 for instance, the court stated as follows:
A very careful reading of sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act would
disclose that publication in Gazette and local newspapers are not mode or
manner of effecting service under Land Use Act. It does appear to me that
omission of publication in the Gazette and newspaper is to further
emphasise to acquiring authorities that the legislature has in mind personal
service only as it left the acquiring authority with no option. Publication in
the Gazette or newspaper is a mere grafting of a manner of serving notice
prescribed under section 9(3) of Public Land Acquisition Law on the
provisions of section 44 of the Land Use Act. For a notice to be valid it
has to be served in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Act.
Ibid at p. 24-25, paras. D-A.
In light of the foregoing, for there to be a valid acquisition notice of revocation of the right of
occupancy must be served on the holder by personal service. The Act provides for situations
where it is impracticable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name or address of a holder
or occupier of land on whom it should be served, by addressing it to him by the description of
“holder” or “occupier” of the premises to which it relates, and by delivering it to some 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. S. 44(e) Land Use Act.
Where a right of occupancy has been revoked in compliance with existing law, the occupier
or holder is entitled to be paid compensation promptly and the law gives to any person
claiming such compensation a right of access to a court or tribunal or body having
jurisdiction for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of
compensation payable.
In National Universities Commission v. Oluwo, [2001] 3 NWLR (Pt. 699) at p. 90 the Court
of Appeal held that where land has been compulsorily acquired the person whose land has
been so compulsorily acquired is entitled to a reasonable compensation. The right to own
property by an individual is well entrenched in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and it carries with it, the right to dispose of the said property. The government with
all its might cannot acquire the land of an individual without paying adequate compensation
to the dispossessed citizen. See Elf Pet. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Umah [2007] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1014) at p.
44; Kukoyi v. Aina [1999] 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) at p. 633 and Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR
(Pt. 135) at p. 745
Government has a duty to comply with the procedure for acquisition of land. This duty was
emphasized by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Goldmark (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd.
[2012] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308) p.291, in the following words:
The court has always emphasized that government has the right to
compulsorily acquire property on payment of compensation. There is no
argument about such constitutional power. There are statutes which
provide for the procedure of acquiring property by the government.
Government is expected to comply with those statutes which it has enacted.
13
 Where government disobeys its own statute by not complying with the laid
down procedure for acquisition of property, it is the duty of the courts to
intervene between the government and the private citizen.
Flowing from the above, failure to comply with the legal requirements for revocation of
existing rights to land renders a subsequent certificate of occupancy on such land a nullity on
the age long principle of nemo dat quod non habet (“No one gives what he does not have”)
The existence of a certificate of occupancy is merely prima facie evidence of title to land it
covers and does not validate a spurious or fraudulent instrument of title or a transfer or grant
which in law is patently invalid or ineffective. The mere issuance of a certificate of
occupancy does not and cannot confer title in respect of land in a person where no such title
either existed or was available to be transferred to anyone (Mulima v. Usman [2014] 16
NWLR Pt. (1432) p. 160. Therefore, for there to be a valid acquisition of land by government,
there must be notice of revocation of the existing title followed by payment of the statutorily
prescribed compensation.

14