The land use Act came into effect in 1978 by virtue of S 1 (1) LUA. The ownership of land in a state is vested in the governor of that state in trust and for the benefit of members of that state. Similarly, for land in non-urban areas. The trust of a land in this area is vested in the local government chairman of that place who may grant a Customary right of occupancy to any one in respect of non-urban areas. See S5 & 6 LUA. All lands in urban areas are designated to be under the control and management of the governor while lands in non-urban areas are designated to the control of the chairman of the LGA within the area which the land is located.
By virtue of S2 LUA, the governor of the state is empowered to establish in the state a Land use Allocation Committee (LUAC), saddled with the responsibility of advising the governor on any matter connected with the re-settlement of persons affected by a revocation of right of occupancy on grounds of overriding public interest. It is also the responsibility of the and use Allocation committee to determine dispute as to amount of compensation, payable under the act for improvement of land. Nb however, the determination of dispute arising from compensation payable may be a subject of litigation if either of the parties is aggrieved by the decision of the Land Use Allocation Committee. At the local government level, each local government is equally mandated to establish a body known as „Land Allocation Advisory Committee‟ (LAAC), which has the responsibility of advising the local government on any matter connected with the management of land in the local government. The LAAC equally has the responsibility of settling disputes that arises on compensation payable on revocation of a right of occupancy. See S2 (2) LUA 1978. NB also, that the land use act does not abrogate (annul) private interest in land. What the citizens have is only a right of occupancy which could either be a statutory right of occupancy granted by the governor or a customary right of occupancy and or a deemed statutory right of occupancy.
A deemed grant of occupancy exists, where a customary tenant is in possession of land before the promulgation of the land use act and that land is developed; such an occupier will be deemed to have been granted a statutory land of occupancy if the land is in urban area or a deemed customary right of occupancy as the case may be. In other words, a deemed grant is envisioned by the provision of S34 LUA. In Adole v Gwor 2008 11 NWLR Pt 1009 Pg 562. The supreme court in explaining the aim and purport of the LUA, held that: it wasn‟t the intention of the law maker that the land use act be used to divest citizens of their traditional tittles to land. Rather, the Act is meant to strengthen ownership that derives its existence through traditional history. The provision of the land use act, specifically S 5 & 6 which only confer a statutory right of occupancy or a customary right of occupancy; does not confer ownership on a holder of a certificate of occupancy. What the act confers on the owner, is a right to use or occupy for a specific period. The life span of a right of occupancy, be it statutory o customary, is 99 years subject to a renewal. While S34 LUA provides that:
“where the land in an urban area was vested in a person before the commencement of the land use Act, that land should continue to be held by him, as if he was a holder of a statutory right of occupancy, issued by the governor. In a situation where the land isn‟t developed, the person who occupies the land before the commencement of the LUA if more than half and acres, the occupier will only be entitled to a grant of statutory right of occupancy to I plot of the land and the right over the rest will be vested in the governor to be administered in accordance to the law”.
Where the land is located in a non-urban area, the only existing right over land after the commencement of the LUA was if the land is developed or such land was being used for agricultural purpose. Such an occupier should continue to be held as if he was a holder of a grant of customary right of occupancy, issued by the local government. See S34 (1) (5) & (6).
The right of occupancy under the LUA, can be categorized as follows:
The customary right of occupancy expressly granted by the local government and deemed to be granted by the local government. Nb, a deemed grant of occupancy or a customary right of occupancy, comes into existence without any form of application by the owner of such land. Here, the grantee, acquires a vested right as if he was granted a right of occupancy.
The land use act has not destroyed in totality, the concept of land ownership. S5 (1a) LUA, empowers the governor of a state in respect of land, whether or not, the land in urban area could grant a right of occupancy to anybody. A statutory right of occupancy, granted by the governor, extinguishes all existing right in respect of land over which it was granted. See Olagunju v Adeseye 2009 9, NWLR Pt 1146, Pg 225.
A holder of a right of occupancy, be it customary or statutory, is in all respect, the owner of that land during the subsistence of that land of occupancy. S14 LUA, confers on a holder of a right of occupancy, exclusive possession of the land except the governor and such exclusive possession is transferable. Nb, where there is an existing grant of a right of occupancy, any other deemed grant in respect of same land, will be invalid.
A certificate of occupancy issued by the governor is an evidence that a right of occupancy is an evidence that a right of occupancy has been conferred on the holder and a prima facie evidence of title.
