LEGAL PRINCIPLE: LAND LAW – Land Use Act – Certificate of Occupancy Invalid Where Another Had Better Title
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a certificate of occupancy has been granted to one of two claimants who has not proved a better title, it must be deemed to be defective and to have been granted or issued erroneously and against the spirit of the Land Use Act and the holder of such a certificate would have no legal basis for a valid claim over the land in issue. So, too, where it is shown by evidence that another person other than the grantee of a certificate of occupancy had a better right to the grant, the court may have no option but to set aside the grant or otherwise discountenance it as invalid, defective and/or spurious as the case may be.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Olohunde & Anor v. Adeyoja (2000) NLC-151995(SC) at p. 15; Paras C–E.
"Where a certificate of occupancy has been granted to one of two claimants who has not proved a better title, it must be deemed to be defective and to have been granted or issued erroneously and against the spirit of the Land Use Act and the holder of such a certificate would have no legal basis for a valid claim over the land in issue. So, too, where it is shown by evidence that another person other than the grantee of a certificate of occupancy had a better right to the grant, the court may have no option but to set aside the grant or otherwise discountenance it as invalid, defective and/or spurious as the case may be."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
If the certificate holder cannot prove better title than the other claimant, the certificate is defective and invalid. The grant is against the spirit of the Land Use Act, which vests all land in the Governor but does not extinguish pre-existing rights. Where another person has better title, the court must set aside the certificate or discountenance it. The certificate cannot be used to defeat superior prior interests. The holder has no legal basis to claim the land. The court protects pre-existing rights despite subsequent grants. The Act does not authorize expropriation of valid existing rights without compensation.