In Nigeria, a certificate of occupancy (C of O) is an official document issued by a state government that certifies the owner of a building or land has complied with relevant laws. The power to issue a C of O is vested in the state governor of each state where the land is located, according to Section 9 of the Land Use Act of 1978. The governor authorizes the issuance of the C of O; once it has been issued, the holder has a statutory right to occupy and use the land—usually for a lease term of 99 years. But the situation is different in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja; it is the Minister of the FCT who holds this authority to issue C of O instead of a governor.
Section 9 of the Act states thus:
(1) It shall be lawful for the Governor—(a) when granting a statutory right of occupancy to any person or (b) when any person is in occupation of land under a customary right of occupancy andapplies in the prescribed manner; or (c) when any person is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy, to issue a certificate under his hand in evidence of such right of occupancy.
It is important to note that before a person can be granted and obtain the certificate of occupancy, such a person is mandated and expected to pay a fee as may be prescribed. See S 9 (2) of the Act.
Therefore, a C of O guarantees the holder to occupy and use the land without any fear of interference. Law will not protect a person who obtained a C of O when there is a valid and subsisting one held by another person except when there is an intentional revocation by the holder or a statutory revocation. This postulation enjoys judicial flavor in the case NNADIKE & ANOR v. NWACHUKWU (2019) LPELR-48131(SC), where Per KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, JSC, held as follows:
“Where there is a subsisting title over land in favour of one party, that title cannot be extinguished by the mere issuance of a C of O to another party, without a valid revocation of the earlier title. See: Dzungwe v. Gbishe (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 528; Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597; Ononuju v. A-G Anambra State (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1148) 182. To extinguish a statutory right of occupancy granted or deemed granted, the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Use Act 1978 must be scrupulously complied with. And where a person who is the owner of an existing right including customary right of occupancy, in respect of land over which a statutory right of occupancy is issued to a third party by the Governor of a State, he may sue to set aside the right of occupancy granted in favour of the third party except if it is for overriding public purpose. See: Dabup v. Kolo (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 317) 254; Saude v. Abdullahi (1984) 4 NWLR Pt. 116) 387…”
Does the certificate of occupancy guarantee proof of title to land? The answer to this question is no! C of O only gives the holder the right to occupy and use the land; it doesn’t confer absolute ownership of the land. This stand was recognized in the case of ADEDEJI & ANOR v. NWOSU & ORS (2025) LPELR-81458(CA) where the court held that, “In Ogunleye v Oni, the Supreme Court held that: “A certificate of occupancy only gives the right to use and occupy land. It neither confers nor is necessarily evidence of title.” Per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, Pp 69-70, paras. C-A.
It was further held that “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, to have been granted or issued erroneously and against the spirit of the Act, and the holder would have no legal basis for a valid claim over the land in dispute.”
This is a recent development by our judiciary, a holder of land can’t claim the title to land after the acquisition of a certificate of occupancy—evidence of title only confers possession on the owner. Proving title to land is difficult in the Nigerian legal system because the title of land located in a particular territory of a state belongs to the state governor.
The court added that, “In other words, possession cannot be properly and validly secured by an act of trespass, or acquisition of a certificate of occupancy procured after this trespass. So held this Court in the case of Datoegoem Dakat v. Musa Dashe (1997) 12 SCNJ, 90, Page 41 Paras C-E. See also Otukpo v. John (2012) LPELR 25053 (SC) where the Supreme Court maintained the position of the law that “a certificate of Occupancy, as has been held by this Court in a number of cases, is prima facie evidence of title or possession, which is, however, not a conclusive proof of title to the land it relates.” See Registered Trustees Mission vs Mrs. E.I. Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt 158) 514″ per Onnoghen, JSC.
In conclusion, the C of O is not conclusive evidence to prove a title to land in the court; it only gives the right to use and occupy the land. Anyone who bought land only enjoys the possessory right, not the ownership right, i.e., he is only regarded as a holder of the land, not the owner of the land—the title of land is vested in the state governor according to section 1 of the Land Use Act.
The writer is a final year law student at Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto and writer who has written legal articles.
He can be reach through: kamaldeenabdulrasaq@gmail.com
09072621530.
