The Law on Revocation of Right of Occupancy

CASE TITLE: DONLI v. ABDULLAHI & ORS (2022) LPELR-58570(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND AUGUST, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the revocation of the statutory right of occupancy.

FACTS

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, sitting in Apo in Suit with No. FCT/HC/CV/416/2007 delivered on the 22nd of February, 2016.

​In brief, the 1st respondent caused a writ of summons to issue against the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and 2 ors. From the amended writ of summons and the accompanying statement of claim, the plaintiff, now 1st respondent prayed, inter alia, for the following orders:

1. A declaration that the purported revocation of the plaintiff’s Certificate of Occupancy number FCT/ABU/KN.1202 (new number AN 10837 over Plot 268 Jabi District Abuja by the 1st Defendant which revocation has not been communicated to the plaintiff) is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

2. An order restoring the plaintiff’s Certificate of Occupancy number FCT/ABU/KN.1202 (new number AN 10837 overall that parcel of land known and called Plot 268 Jabi District, Abuja.)

​The plaintiff/1st respondent’s case was that, on or about the 27/4/03, he was issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the 1st Defendant/2nd respondent over all that undeveloped parcel of land known and called Plot number 268 Jabi District, Cadastral Zone B4, Abuja, and as at the 27/4/03, Jabi District had not been serviced with any infrastructure by the 2nd Defendant. He then averred that following the directives of the 1st Defendant that holders of Certificates of Occupancy in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja should recertify same, he duly complied with the said directive and was issued an acknowledgement. On or about 18/10/05, he submitted building plans to the 2nd Defendant/3rd respondent for approval. No query had been issued against the building plans submitted and the same had passed all stages of approval, leaving only bills to be drawn up by the 2nd Defendant, which is issued by the 2nd Defendant and settled by the Plaintiff, would have completed the building approval process. Prior to the final process of the approval of his building plans, 1st respondent had, in conformity with the building plans submitted to the 2nd Defendant and without any objection from the Defendants, erected a wall fence around plot 268 Jabi District, Abuja and has on the Plot various building materials. About 20/12/05, the 1st and 2nd Defendant purportedly revoked the Plaintiff’s Certificate of Occupancy even though to date, he had not been served with any notice of revocation.

​The appellant, upon being issued the amended writ of summons, filed a statement of defense and counter-claim. It was the case of the appellant that the actions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, in revoking the 1st respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy were proper, regular and valid in law and that she (the appellant) was duly offered and granted Plot 268, Jabi District, after following due process of application and acceptance of an offer to the 2nd respondent for a Statutory Right of Occupancy which was granted on the 16/5/2007 after the 1st respondent’s Certificate over the Plot was revoked on the 15/5/2007.

At the end of the trial, the Court in a judgment found in favour of the Plaintiff/1st respondent and dismissed the counter-claim. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues for determination:

1. Whether or not the learned trial Judge Hon. Orji J of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja was correct when he held that the Notice of Revocation in respect of Plot 268 Jabi Abuja dated 5/10/2005 and dispatched by courier on 15/5/2007 to Plaintiff did not validly or lawfully revoke the Plaintiff’s title in the said land?

2. Whether having regard to the state of admissible evidence on the record the allocation of Plot 268 Jabi District to the Appellant by the 2nd respondent via an offer of statutory allocation dated 25/3/2006 and issued under the hand of the Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory is valid in law?

3. Whether or not the learned trial Judge Orji J made out a case for the parties different from what the parties contemplated when it considered the validity or otherwise of the re-allocation of Plot 268 Jabi District to the appellant thereby breaching the appellant’s right to a fair hearing.

DECISION/HELD

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• LAND LAW – REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Whether there can be a valid revocation of the right of occupancy where the holder has not been personally served; who has the burden to prove the same
• LAND LAW – REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Power of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory to revoke a certificate of occupancy; grounds under which same may be revoked
• LAND LAW – REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Conditions for valid revocation of a subsisting right of occupancy; effect of the grant of another right of occupancy over a subsisting right of occupancy
• LAND LAW – REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Requirements for a valid service of notice of revocation of a right of occupancy
• LAND LAW – REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Whether an invalid allocation can be revoked