A Certificate of Occupancy has become the most popular piece of evidence of title. Grounds for its prominence are not far-fetched, it is statutorily provided for as evidence of title, since the Land Use Act now vests all land in a given state in Nigeria in the governor of such state.

It then follows that whoever lays claim to any land must do so with the consent of its trustee – the Governor. It is for these reason financial institutions which still regard landed property as the most reliable form of collateral for its facilities, do have preference for Certificate of Occupancy over other land documents.

The Supreme Court confirmed this position when it held in the case of [b]GRACE MADU VS DR. BETRAM MADU (2008] 2-3 S. C.(PT. II) 109, that “The settled law in grant of C of O, is that once a person is granted a C of O over a parcel of land, he is entitled to hold that parcel of land to the exclusion of any other person unless the C of O is for good reasons, revoked by the same authority that granted it…”

“The Certificate also raises the presumption that at the time it was issued, there was not in existence, a customary owner whose title has not been revoked. It should however be noted that the presumption is rebuttable because if it is proved by evidence that another person had a better title to the land before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy in which case the Certificate of Occupancy will stand revoked by the court”.

The above position consolidated an earlier Supreme Court’s decision in the millennium case of SUNMONU OLOHUNDE & ANOR VS PROFESSOR S.K. ADEYOJU (2000) 6 S.C. [pt. iii] 118 where the Court toed the line of OGUNLEYE V. ONI 1990 2 NWLR PT 135 733 that a Certificate of Occupancy is not a conclusive evidence of title in favour of its holder, when it held that-

“The point must be stressed that a certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act, 1978 cannot be said to be conclusive evidence of any right, interest or valid title to land in favour of the grantee. It is, at best, only a prima facie evidence of such right, interest or title without more and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid and null and void”

Conversely, it is common knowledge that every seven out of ten houses or properties have not successfully obtained their Certificate of Occupancy. Several reasons have been adduced to this reluctance by those who kept their distances from this all important document. First of all, landlords and property owners are unaware of the importance of the Certificate of Occupancy until the question of TITLE comes up.

Whoever a buyer buys the property from, be it from the government or individual, the state government’s consent is needed to legitimize such purchase. For landlords and would-be Real Estate operators, it is important to be aware of the necessity to have the Certificate of Occupancy.
Individuals or corporations seeking to buy land in Lagos have several options: They can buy straight from the government in the case of government acquired land or buy from individuals who have bought from the government or bought from the customary land owners (popularly known as Omo o’nile in Lagos), upon verification of the authenticity of the land from the land bureau office.

It is thus trite that where a Certificate of Occupancy is irregularly issued to a holder, the court has the power to declare the Certificate of Occupancy a nullity and same can be set aside. This position was well adumbrated by the Court of Appeal in the following cases: In OFOEZE V. OGUGUA (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt 455) 451, the Court held that Certificate of Occupancy does not confer an indefeasible title to land. This trend was followed in ANGBAZO V. SULE & Ors. [1996] 7 NWLR 285 while in MBASHINYA V. LIMAN (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt 434) 62, the court held that the right of an existing holder or occupier of a parcel of land is not automatically extinguished by a mere issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to another person under the color of a person in occupation. It does not extinguish the right of any other person having a customary right over the land.

Consequently, any person without title to a parcel of land in respect of which a Certificate of Occupancy was issued acquires no right or interest, which he did not have before “ex Nihilo Nihil Fit” that is, we cannot build something on nothing.

It must be noted that a Certificate of Occupancy may be a good title, where there exists a valid right of occupancy by the holder before the advent of the Land Use Act. However, where a Certificate of Occupancy is issued to a holder without due regard to the rights and interest of an occupier or holder of a right of occupancy, such a Certificate of Occupancy evidences nothing and does not confer any right or interests in the affected land.

The procedures and requirements for obtaining the certificate vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and on the type of structure in question.
The Lagos State Government has said that new applicants for Certificate of Occupancy on properties would be issued the document within 90 days of payment. The state government stated that‎ the speed is to ensure that the process of applying and getting the copy of the C of O is not only less cumbersome but treated within the stipulated time.

A Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Lagos State Government is for a lease period of 99 yrs.

NOW THE CRUCIAL QUESTION: WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 99 YEARS?
This question is still an area under discussion among experts. Most of who have adopted a wait-and-see position. Others propose that as the new owner of the land, the buyer can renew the certificate of occupancy when it expires. That seems logical, but for now is largely a case of “Until then”.