LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Revocation of Right of Occupancy – Purposes Outside Prescribed Grounds – Revocation Invalid
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The power of revocation of a right of occupancy is conferred only for purposes clearly set out in the Land Use Act; any revocation for purposes outside those prescribed is invalid and null and void.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, citing Obaseki, JSC in Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation (1991), in Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd. v. Denap Ltd. & Anor (2001) NLC-1631997(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras E–A.
"The purpose for which the power of revocation of a right of occupancy was conferred on the Military Governor of a State has been clearly set out in the Land Use Act. Any revocation for purposes outside the ones prescribed even though ostensively for purposes prescribed by the Land Use Act is against the policy and intention of the Land Use Act and can be declared invalid and null and void by a competent court of law."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The Land Use Act specifies the grounds for revoking a right of occupancy. Revocation for purposes not prescribed is invalid, even if the government purports to act under the Act. The court will examine whether the stated purpose is genuine. A colourable exercise of power—using a prescribed purpose as a pretext for an improper purpose—is invalid. The principle protects holders of rights of occupancy from arbitrary revocation. The government cannot use the power of revocation for extraneous reasons. The court will look at the substance, not merely the form, of the revocation. The burden is on the government to justify revocation within the statutory grounds.