Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:15:49.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the Grant of Governor's Consent Under the Nigerian Land Use Act Automatic?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Oladipo O. Sholanke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the celebrated case of Savannah Bank Limited v. Ajilo the Supreme Court of Nigeria unanimously ruled that a deemed right of occupancy under section 34(2) of the Land Use Act is the same as a right of occupancy actually granted by the Governor, with all the attendant consequences. Thus, the controversy as to whether a person who is deemed to be a holder of a right of occupancy pursuant to section 34(2) of the Act requires the prior consent of the Governor before he can transfer, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of his interest in the right of occupancy, would appear to have been finally laid to rest. Such a person needs the consent of the Governor for a valid alienation of his interest.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Spring 1990 , pp. 42 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1989) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 97), 305Google Scholar.

2 Act No.6 of 29 03, 1978Google Scholar.

3 Under s. 5(1) (a) of the Land Use Act (L.U.A.).

4 See ss. 15(b), 22, 26 and 34 L.U.A.

5 There are two schools of thought on this controversy. One has been aptly described as “the Omotola School”. The other may be described as that of Professor A. B. Kasumu's, with the strong backing of the courts. See generally: Omotola, J. A., Essays on the Land Use Act, 1978, 26–30Google Scholar; Omotola, , “Volcanic Development in Nigerian Law of Real Property”, Nig. J. Contemp. Law (1984–1987) 46–61Google Scholar; Omotola, , “Unifying the Right of Occupancy”, (1986/1987) 6&7J.P.P.L. 1Google Scholar; Chief Williams, F. R. A., S.A.N., in Savannah Bank Ltd. v. Ajilo & Anor (above)Google Scholar; A.Utuamah, A., Nigerian Law of Real Property, 1989, 132Google Scholar; James, R. W., Nigerian Land Use Act: Policies and Principles, 1987, 130Google Scholar; Adigun, Olaide & Utuamah, A. A., “A Decade of Land Reform in Nigeria—The Land Use Act, 1978 in Perspective”,Google Scholar paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of Law Teachers held at Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, in 03, 1988, 42–46Google Scholar; Olawoye, C. O., “Statutory Shaping of Land Law and Land Administration Up To the Land Use Act”, published in The Report of a National Workshop on the Land Use Act, Lagos, 1982, 19Google Scholar; Kasumu, A. B.: “The Question of Consent to Alienation—Effect on Development”, in The Report of a National Workshop on the Land Use Act, 1982, 94Google Scholar; Kasumu, A. B., as amicus curiae in Savannah Bank Ltd. v. Ajilo (above); L.S.D.P.C. v. Foreign Finance Corporation Ltd (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.50), 413, 433–444Google Scholar, per Ademola, J.C.A.; Obikoya v. Gov. of Lagos State (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.50), 385, 409Google Scholar, per Nnaemeka Agu, J.C.A.

6 J. Fenine Fekumo is of the view that we have not seen the end of the controversy surrounding deemed and formal grants as they relate to tenure, which the Ajilo case attempted to settle with respect to consent. See: “The Land Market Under the Land Use Act”, (1989) 2 G.R.B.P.L. No.8, 22, 26Google Scholar.

7 Savannah Bank Ltd. v. Ajilo (above).

8 Examples are: Nnamani, A., “The Land Use Act—11 Years After”, (1989) 2 G.R.B.P.L. No.6, 31Google Scholar; Utuamah, A. A., “The Crocodile Tears in Savannah Bank Limited v. Ajilo”, (1989) 2 G.R.B.P.L. No. 4, 20Google Scholar; Oshio, P. E., “Farewell to the Consent Controversy: Savannah Bank Ltd. v. Ajilo”, (1989) 2 G.R.B.P.L. No. 7, 29Google Scholar; Okoli, R. C., “Crocodile Tears at the Supreme Court?”, (1989) 2 G.R.B.P.L. No. 7, 37Google Scholar; Nwizugbo, V. A.: “A Way Out of the Quandary of the Savannah Bank (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ajilo Case”, (1989) 2 G.R.B.P.L. No. 7, 41Google Scholar.

9 n. 8 above; Savannah Bank Ltd. v. Ajilo 305, 329, per Obaseki, J.S.C.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., 305, 329

11 Ibid., 305, 324.

12 Unreported Suit No. ID/442/85 delivered on 12 02, 1986Google Scholar.

13 (1987) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.57), 427Google Scholar.

14 Oshio, P. E., op. cit., at 29Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., 35.

16 Utuamah, A. A., op. cit., at 26Google Scholar.

17 ss. 15(b), 21, 22, 23, 24 and 34 L.U.A.

18 Under 5(1)(a) L.U.A.

19 Under s. 34(2) L.U.A.

20 The Governor has powers to stipulate the conditions under which he may consent to a transaction caught by the Act. See s. 46(2) L.U.A.

21 Notable in this regard is the refusal of some state Governments to accede to the requests of the Federal Government or its agencies for the grant of rights of occupancy over lands within their domain and the revocation of rights of occupancy by some State Governors in a despotic manner. See for e.g. Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State (1984) 6 S.C. 362Google Scholar; Mahmud, Abdulmalik Bappa, “Land in Accordance with Islamic Law and Decree”, in The Report of a National Workshop on the Land Use Act, 1982, 33Google Scholar; Oretuyi, S.A., “Public Take-Over of Land—Federal and State Governments Rights Over Land—The Conflict”, in The Report of a National Workshop on the Land Use Act, 1982, 74Google Scholar; James, R. W., op. cit., 51–52Google Scholar. In Lagos State, consent provisions in the Act are being used as a pivot for revenue generation, thus enabling the State to charge very high “consent fees”. See L.S.L.N. No. 9 of 1985.

22 .The present Military Administration hopes to hand over power to democratically elected civilians in 1992.

23 See for e.g. ss. 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 34(7), 45, and 46 of the L.U.A.

24 Cap. 59, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963. See for e.g. ss. 20, 27(b)(i), 28, 29 and 30(b). And sees. 12(4) L.U.A.

25 Omotola, J. A., “Volcanic Development in the Nigerian Law of Real Property”, Nig. J. Contemp. Law (1984–1987), 46, 56Google Scholar; Utuamah, A. A., “Planning Law Implications in the Land Use Act, 1978”, (1984) 1 & 2 J.P.P.L. 45Google Scholar.

26 Olawoye, C. O., “Statutory Shaping of Land Law and Land Administration Up to the Land Use Act”, in The Report of a National Workshop on the Land Use Act, 1982, 14, 19Google Scholar; Omotola, J. A., Essays on the Land Use Act, 1978, 26Google Scholar; Yakubu, M. G.: “Business Development Under the Nigerian Tenure System”, (1984 & 1985) 2 & 3 A.B.U.L.J. 53, 61Google Scholar; Omotola, J. A., “Does the Land Use Act Expropriate?”, (1985) 3 J.P.P.L. 1Google Scholar; Umezulike, I. A., “Does the Land Use Act 1978 Expropriate?”, (1986) 5 J.P.P.L. 61Google Scholar; Ezejiofor, G., “The Land Use Decree: A Critical Review”, (1977) 2 Nig. J.R. 1, 7Google Scholar.

27 Omotola, J. A., Essays on the Land Use Act, 1978, 23Google Scholar.

28 Utuamah, A. A., Nigerian Law of Real Property, 1989, 134Google Scholar.

29 Fekumo, J. Fenine, “The Land Market Under the Land Use Act”, (1989) 2 G.R.B.P.L. No. 8 22, 27Google Scholar.

30 Fekumo, J. Fenine cited a number of Nigerian cases in support of this contention including the recent case of Onwuka v. Ediala (1989) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.96), 182, 199Google Scholar.

31 s. 46(2) L.U.A.

32 Olawoye, C. O., op. cit., at 21Google Scholar.

33 Yakubu, M. G., Land Law in Nigeria, 1985, 206Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., at p. 206.

35 Ibid., at p. 206. See also Olawoye, C. O., op. cit., at 17Google Scholar; Kasumu, A. B., op. cit., at 98Google Scholar.

36 (1963) N.R.N.L.R. 58Google Scholar.

37 1916.

38 The case of The Queen v. The Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income Tax (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 313Google Scholar, cited and relied upon by the applicant in support of his claim was briefly considered and rejected as being inappropriate.

39 (1963)N.R.N.L.R. 58 at 61Google Scholar.

40 Notably the 1979 Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution.

41 Stitch v. A.G. Federation (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.46), 1007Google Scholar.

42 See s. 28 L.U.A. See also s. 7 of the Act under which it is unlawful for the Governor to consent to the assignment or sub-letting of a statutory right of occupancy to a person under the age of 21.

43 Obikoya v. G.L.S (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.50), 385Google Scholar.

44 Stitch v. A.G. Federation (above).

45 Under s. 45 L.U.A.

46 See Omotola, J. A.: “The Certificate of Occupancy”, published in The Report of a National Workshop on the Land Use Act, 1982, 84Google Scholar.

47 (1879–1980) L.R. 5 A.C. 214Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., at 222–223. Underlining mine.

49 (1981) 1 S.C. 40Google Scholar.

50 (1981) 1 S.C. 40 at 61–63. Underlining mineGoogle Scholar.

51 (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.46) 1007Google Scholar.

52 Ibid., at 1008–1009.

53 This section gives the Import Licence Authority and the minister powers to refuse to grant licence without assigning reasons for such refusal; to revoke any licence at any time for any contravention of the Act; and to modify any licence at any time on an application by the licensee or where the circumstances so warrant.

54 Ibid, at 1025, per Aniagolu, J.S.C.

55 FHC/L/193/82 delivered on 18/05/83.

56 CA/L/61/84 delivered on 26/11/84.

57 Ibid., at 1029.

58 Ibid., at 1029.

59 Ibid., at 1027.

60 See also Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shin, [1983] 2 A.C. 629Google Scholar.

61 (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.3), 497Google Scholar.

62 Ibid., at 520.

63 s. 46(2) L.U.A.

64 There is usually a prescribed form. In Lagos State for example, Form 1C contains questions on the holding being alienated, the nature of the grant, particulars of the grantor and grantee and other related issues.

65 These may include the submission of certain documents such as current tax clearance certificates of the applicant and the grantee, a certified true copy of the applicant's document of title, a draft copy of the deed on which consent is being sought and documentary evidence of payment of tenement rate where the property is developed.

66 See e.g. L.S.L.N. No.9 of 1985.Google Scholar

67 The only valid reason is that provided for by the Land Use Act.

68 My emphasis.

69 Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture [1968] A.C. 997Google Scholar; Laker Airways Ltd v. Dept. of Trade [1977] Q.B. 643Google Scholar.

70 Shitta-Bey v. F.P.S.C. (above); Fawehinmi v. Halilu Akilu (1987) 12 S.C. 136Google Scholar. And see ss. 18 and 19 High Court Law, Cap. 152 Vol. III Laws of Lagos State, 1973Google Scholar.

71 Stitch v. A.G. Federation.

72 Fawehinmi v. Halilu Akilu (above); Order 53 High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules, 1972; Order 22Google Scholar Rules of Civil Procedure applicable in the High Courts of the Eastern States; Order 53 R.S.C. (England).

73 R v. Inland Revenue Commissioner ex p. National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] A.C. 617Google Scholar; Fawehinmi v. Halilu Akilu (above).

74 Iwuji v. Fed. Commissioner of Establishments (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.3), 497Google Scholar.

75 n. 74 above.

76 See also Congreve v. Home Office [1976] Q.B. 629Google Scholar.

77 See also Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All E.R. 935Google Scholar.

78 (1986) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.22), 409Google Scholar. The Court of Appeal granted an injunction to restrain the Governor of Kano State or his privies from exercising his power pursuant to s. 28 of the Land Use Act until the determination of the appeal lodged by the appellant against the ruling of the High Court.

79 At 415, citing with approval, Wade, Administrative Law, 5th Edition37Google Scholar.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 See e.g.: Shitta-Bey v. F.P.S.C. (1981) 1 S.C. 40Google ScholarOlaniyan v. Unilag (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.9), 599Google Scholar; Eperokun v. Unilag (1986) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.34), 162Google Scholar; Olatunbosun v. N.I.S.E.R. (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.80), 25Google Scholar; Garba v. Unimaid, (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.18), 550Google Scholar; Obikoya v. G.L.S. (1978) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.50), 385Google Scholar.

83 F.C.S.C. v. Laoye (1989) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.106), 652 at 702Google Scholar.

84 These include questions concerning ss. 2, 5(1)(a), 6 and compensation provisions in the Act.

85 In Kanada v. Governor, Kaduna State (1986) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.35), 361Google Scholar, it w a s held that s. 47(2) of the Land Use Act is inconsistent with the unsuspended parts of the 1979 Constitution and is therefore void.

86 s. 6(6) (b) 1979 Constitution; Adesanya v. President of Nigeria (1981) N.C.L.R. 338Google Scholar; Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.18), 669Google Scholar; A.G. Kaduna State v. Hassan (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.8) 483Google Scholar; Fawehinmi v. Halilu Akilu (1987) 12 S.C. 136Google Scholar.

87 The description of Eso, J.S.C., in Government of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.18), 621, 634Google Scholar.