Why a C of O Doesn't Always Mean Your Land Is Safe

There is a document that Nigerian property buyers treat as the end of the due diligence process. The Certificate of Occupancy is framed in most transactions as the gold standard of Nigerian title, the proof of ownership that makes everything else secondary. What most buyers do not fully understand is that the C of O is not a title in the absolute sense. It is a presumption of right, issued by the government, revocable by the government, subject to conditions that the government can enforce, and legally challengeable in court on grounds that have nothing to do with whether the document itself looks legitimate. The conflict between what a C of O appears to grant and what the Land Use Act actually permits is one of the most consequential legal tensions in Nigerian real estate, and it is voiding titles across the country in ways that owners never see coming. At TheHouse48, understanding this conflict is not optional knowledge. It is the foundation of every serious property decision in Nigeria.

What the C of O Actually Is and What It Is Not

The Supreme Court addressed this question directly in Olohunde v. Adeyoju in 2000, and the ruling has never been overturned. The court held that a Certificate of Occupancy 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 prima facie evidence of such right, which may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid, null and void. That language is unambiguous and its implications are significant. A C of O is not proof of ownership. It is evidence of a government-granted right of occupancy that creates a legal presumption in favour of the holder but does not extinguish competing claims that predate it or arise from processes the Act itself did not properly follow. A C of O grants leasehold rights, not outright ownership, as all land ultimately belongs to the government, and without a C of O, land ownership claims may be legally weak and exposed to disputes or government revocation. But the inverse is equally true: a C of O alone does not guarantee that no superior or competing claim exists.

The Governor's Consent Gap That Voids Transactions Quietly

The most consistently litigated source of title conflict in Nigeria sits at Section 22 of the Land Use Act. Section 22 of the Land Use Act is unambiguous: the holder of a statutory right of occupancy cannot assign, mortgage, lease beyond certain durations, or otherwise alienate their right without the prior consent of the Governor. The ruling in Ajose-Fambaiye v. Ganiyu in 1983 reaffirmed the mandatory requirement that any alienation or transfer of statutory land interests must receive gubernatorial consent under the Land Use Act. Transactions conducted without such consent are void and unenforceable. The practical consequence is that a buyer who purchases a property, takes possession, pays in full and holds what appears to be a complete set of transaction documents may have acquired nothing legally enforceable if Governor's Consent was not obtained for the transfer. Without such consent, transfers are void, exposing parties to legal risks like eviction or invalid titles, though courts have occasionally validated equitable interests in good-faith dealings pending approval. That occasional court validation is the exception that sophisticated buyers should not rely upon as their primary protection.

Where Customary Rights and Statutory Titles Collide

One of the most damaging conflict scenarios arises when a C of O is issued over land that carries pre-existing customary rights that were never extinguished before the statutory title was granted. Conflicts arise when individuals hold statutory titles while community members assert customary ownership claims to the same land, and these disputes are among the most protracted in the Nigerian court system because they pit two legally recognised frameworks against each other. The Land Use Act was meant to supersede pre-existing customary ownership, but Section 36 of the Act preserved rights held by individuals before the Act's commencement in 1978, creating a legal bridge between the old and new systems that has never been cleanly resolved in many communities. A buyer who purchases land under a C of O in an area where the customary rights were never formally extinguished or converted may find that a community, a family or an individual with documented pre-1978 rights has a superior legal claim that the C of O cannot defeat.

The Registry Problem That Makes Everything Worse

The legal conflicts described above would be more manageable if Nigeria operated a unified, searchable, real-time land registry that allowed any buyer to verify the full history of a title before committing capital. Overlapping state and local government roles lead to jurisdictional conflicts, while the absence of a unified digital registry fosters disputes over land validity, requiring repeated interventions. Corruption compounds these issues, with officials leveraging delays for inducements, and efforts like digitisation in Lagos and Ogun States seek to mitigate inefficiencies. In the interim, a title search at the relevant state land bureau remains the only reliable independent verification available, and even that search is limited by the completeness and accuracy of the physical records it is searching through. As of January 2026, the call for a National Land Commission to standardise how land is managed across all 36 states has moved into active legislative discussion, with proposals for a unified digital National Land Registry under active consideration. Those proposals have not yet been enacted, meaning the existing fragmented system remains operative.

What Every Buyer Must Do Before Committing

The protection available within the current framework requires discipline rather than expertise. Every C of O must be verified directly at the issuing state land bureau, not through documents presented by the seller. The verification must confirm that the C of O on its face matches the registered entry, that no revocation notice has been annotated against the title and that the most recent transfer was completed with Governor's Consent properly obtained and recorded. An independent registered surveyor must verify that the physical plot being purchased corresponds to the survey coordinates on the title document. An independent lawyer with no relationship to the selling party must conduct the full title search and flag any competing claims or documentation gaps before any payment is made.

TheHouse48 believes that a C of O in your hand is the beginning of due diligence, not the end of it. The conflict between what that document appears to represent and what the Land Use Act actually permits has been decided by Nigerian courts on enough occasions to make the lesson clear. The buyers who protect themselves are the ones who verify beyond the document, not the ones who assume the document is the verification.