19/06/2019
REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY- RATIONALE FOR THE REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
โThe Land Use Act makes provision for revocation of a right of occupancy by a Governor. Section 28 of the Act provides:
(1) It shall be lawful for the Governor to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest
(2) Overriding public interest in the case of a statutory right of occupancy means -
(a) The alienation by the occupier by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sub-lease, or otherwise of any right of occupancy or part thereof contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder;
(b) The requirement of the land by the Government of the State or by a Local Government in the State, in either case for public purposes with the State, or the requirement of the land by the Government of the Federation, for public purposes of the Federation;
(c) The requirement of the land for mining purposes or oil pipelines or for any purpose connected therewith.
The Governor can only revoke a right of occupancy for "overriding public interest', and it is settled that the revocation of a right of occupancy for public purpose or in the public interest does not include the revocation of the right of a grantee for the purpose of vesting it in another - see Ibrahim V. Mohammed cited and Orianzi V. A.G. Rivers (2017) 6 NWLR (pt 1561) 224 SC. PER A.A AUGIE J.S.C State wherein this Court held:
The Act [Land Use Act] provides checks and balances, which must be observed before making any grant, the conditions under which such grants can be revoked and what follows after revocation. If such powers of revocation are to be exercised, the holder of the right of occupancy must be notified in advance.
The revocation of the right of occupancy for public purpose or in the public interest does not include the revocation of the right of a grantee for the purpose of vesting it in another. Since revocation of the grant involves the deprivation of the proprietary right and obligations of a grantee, all the terms and conditions laid down by the Act must be strictly adhered to and complied with. Therefore, for a revocation of aright of occupancy to be valid, it must be made strictly in compliance with Section 28 of the Land Use Act Even where the revocation is valid, the grantee is fully entitled to compensation under Section 29(1) of the Act. In the instant case, there was no evidence before the trial Court that the Appellant's right was lawfully revoked. He stated that he was not given any notice or any notice in advance that the property was up for revocation. He also stated that he was not paid compensation after it was revoked.