The Misconception Of Revocation Of Land: A Travesty Of Justice That Will Debacle The Administration Of FCT-Abuja BY DR. JOE NWADIKE ESQ

An Antelope that kept mute or rejoices when a Hyena is  devouring a Goat, has acquiesced to a sacrilegious contract of impunity and illegality against itself. Evil triumph when the good men kept quiet.

All the notable human rights Lawyers and Activists in Nigeria, unconsciously kept mute to the ongoing sacrilegious impunity of enthronement of illegality in the guise of revocation and acquisition of land by  the FCT-Abuja Administration.

The Minister of FCT Abuja has the status of a State Governor, therefore the same law (The Land Use Act) on the acquisition of land that governs the State Governors governs the Minister of FCT.

The Land Use Act of 1978 is a federal legislation in Nigeria that regulates the use and management of land. The Act vests all land in the state in the Governor of the state, who holds it in trust for the people.

Section 28 of the Land Use Act provides that the Governor may revoke a Right of Occupancy (which is the interest granted to a landholder under the Act) for overriding public interest. However, the section also requires that the Governor must pay compensation to the landholder for the revocation.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has interpreted the provisions of the Land Use Act in several cases. In the case of Ogunsanya v. Afani (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 1, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s power to revoke a Right of Occupancy is not absolute, and must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

In the case of Savannah Bank v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s power to acquire land for overriding public interest does not entitle him to allot the land to another individual without following the procedures laid down in the Act.

More recently, in the case of Oyo State Government v. Fairlakes Hotel Limited (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 301, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s power to revoke a Right of Occupancy must be exercised in good faith and for overriding public interest, and not for personal gain or to favor another individual.

In conclusion, the Land Use Act and the Supreme Court of Nigeria have established that the government’s power to acquire or revoke land must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and for overriding public interest. The government cannot allot land acquired from one individual to another individual without following the procedures laid down in the Act.

 

THE PROCEDURE FOR REVOCATION OF LAND IN NIGERIA.

Under Nigerian law, the procedure for revocation of land and payment of compensation is governed by the Land Use Act 1978 and various court decisions, including those of the Supreme Court. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

1. Revocation by the Governor: The Governor of the state, where the land is located, has the power to revoke a Right of Occupancy (ROO) for overriding public interest (Section 28, Land Use Act).

2. Notice of Revocation: The Governor must serve a notice of revocation on the holder of the ROO, stating the reasons for the revocation (Section 29, Land Use Act).

3. Payment of Compensation: The Governor must pay compensation to the holder of the ROO for the revocation (Section 29, Land Use Act). The amount of compensation is usually determined by the value of the land and any improvements made to it.

4. Determination of Compensation: The compensation payable is determined by the Land Use Act and the Land Use Regulations. The Governor may appoint a committee to determine the amount of compensation payable (Section 30, Land Use Act).

5. Payment of Compensation: The compensation must be paid within a reasonable time, usually specified in the notice of revocation (Section 31, Land Use Act).

THE POSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA ON REVOCATION: –
In Ogunsanya v. Afani_ (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 1, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s power to revoke a ROO is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Act.

In Savannah Bank v. Ajilo_ (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s power to acquire land for overriding public interest does not entitle him to allot the land to another individual without following the procedures laid down in the Land Use Act. –

In Oyo State Government v. Fairlakes Hotel Limited_ (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 301, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s power to revoke a ROO must be exercised in good faith and for overriding public interest, and not for personal gain or to favor another individual.

These Supreme Court decisions emphasize the importance of following the procedures laid down in the Land Use Act when revoking a ROO and paying compensation.

 

References:
– Land Use Act, 1978
– Ogunsanya v. Afani (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 1
– Savannah Bank v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305
– Oyo State Government v. Fairlakes Hotel Limited (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 301.

 

DR. JOE NWADIKE ESQ (DPA, LLB, BL, ALS, LLM, PHD)