One of the most misunderstood documents in land ownership—particularly in jurisdictions operating statutory land control systems—is the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). Many landowners wrongly believe that once a C of O is issued, their title becomes absolute and immune from challenge. From our collective experience as land law practitioners and litigators, nothing could be further from the truth.
A Certificate of Occupancy is strong evidence of a right of occupancy, but it is not indefeasible. It can be revoked, set aside, or successfully challenged in court where legal requirements are breached. Indeed, some of the most protracted land disputes arise from improper issuance or unlawful revocation of C of O.
This article explains how a Certificate of Occupancy can be revoked and challenged, drawing on statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and academic authorities.
What Is a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O)?
A Certificate of Occupancy is an official document issued by the state, evidencing a person’s right to occupy and use land for a specified purpose and duration.
Under statutory land regimes, the C of O is not ownership in the absolute sense but a confirmation of a right of occupancy granted by the state.
In Ogunleye v Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 745, the Supreme Court held that a C of O is prima facie evidence of a right of occupancy, not conclusive proof of ownership.
Legal Nature of a Certificate of Occupancy
From our experience, understanding the legal nature of a C of O is crucial to appreciating how it can be revoked or challenged.
Key characteristics include:
- It is statutory, not contractual
- It is subject to overriding public interest
- It is conditional, not absolute
As Professor T. O. Elias observed, statutory land tenure replaces radical ownership with regulated occupation.
Statutory Basis for Revocation of a C of O
In many jurisdictions with land use statutes, the law expressly empowers the state to revoke rights of occupancy.
Grounds for Revocation
Common statutory grounds include:
- Overriding public interest
- Breach of conditions attached to the grant
- Non-payment of rents or charges
- Misrepresentation or fraud in acquisition
In Osho v Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 157, the court affirmed that revocation must strictly comply with statutory provisions.
Revocation on Grounds of Overriding Public Interest
Meaning of Overriding Public Interest
Overriding public interest typically includes:
- Urban development
- Road construction
- Public utilities
- Environmental protection
However, public interest must be genuine and not a pretext.
In Goldmark Nigeria Ltd v Ibafon Co Ltd (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308) 291, the Supreme Court held that revocation must be for a legitimate public purpose.
Revocation for Breach of Conditions
Most C of O contain conditions relating to:
- Land use
- Development timelines
- Transfer restrictions
Failure to comply may justify revocation.
In Savannah Bank v Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305, the court emphasized strict compliance with statutory conditions attached to land rights.
Revocation Due to Fraud or Mistake
Where a C of O is obtained through:
- False information
- Suppression of material facts
- Forged documents
It can be revoked or declared null.
In Federal Capital Development Authority v Sule (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 332) 257, a C of O obtained fraudulently was set aside.
Procedural Requirements for Valid Revocation
From our experience, procedure is everything. Even where grounds exist, failure to follow due process invalidates revocation.
Key procedural requirements include:
- Proper notice of revocation
- Service on the holder
- Clear statement of grounds
- Compliance with statutory authority
In Osho v Foreign Finance Corporation, revocation without proper notice was declared invalid.
How a Certificate of Occupancy Can Be Challenged
A C of O may be challenged by:
- Competing claimants
- Prior equitable owners
- Persons dispossessed unlawfully
Grounds for Challenging a C of O
1. Prior Existing Title
A C of O issued over land already vested in another person is defective.
In Idundun v Okumagba (1976) 9–10 SC 227, the court held that the state cannot grant what it does not have.
2. Lack of Statutory Authority
Where the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction, the C of O is void.
3. Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Suppression
Courts readily set aside C of O tainted by fraud.
4. Failure to Comply with Due Process
Absence of notice or statutory compliance renders revocation unlawful.
Burden of Proof in C of O Disputes
A holder of a C of O bears the burden of proving:
- Valid issuance
- Compliance with conditions
- Absence of overriding prior interests
In Nkwocha v Governor of Anambra State (1984) 1 SCNLR 634, the court clarified the evidentiary value of a C of O.
Compensation Where C of O Is Revoked
Where revocation is lawful and for public interest, compensation is usually payable for:
- Unexhausted improvements
- Buildings and fixtures
However, compensation is not payable for the land itself.
Academic Commentary
According to Megarry & Wade, statutory land systems prioritize public control over absolute private ownership, making revocation legally possible but procedurally constrained.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can a C of O be revoked at will?
No. Revocation must comply strictly with statutory grounds and procedure.
2. Is a C of O absolute proof of ownership?
No. It is prima facie evidence, not conclusive title.
3. Can a revoked C of O be challenged in court?
Yes, especially where due process or public interest is absent.
4. Is compensation always payable after revocation?
Only for unexhausted improvements, not the land itself.
5. Can two C of O exist over the same land?
Yes, but courts will invalidate the defective one.
Conclusion
From our collective professional experience, a Certificate of Occupancy is a powerful but conditional instrument. It does not confer absolute ownership, nor does it place land beyond challenge or revocation.
C of O can be lawfully revoked for public interest, breach of conditions, or fraud—but only through strict compliance with statutory procedure. Equally, improperly issued or unlawfully revoked certificates can and should be challenged in court.
For landholders across the globe, the lesson is clear: the strength of a C of O lies not merely in its issuance, but in its legality, procedural compliance, and factual foundation.
This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek jurisdiction-specific professional guidance regarding Certificate of Occupancy disputes.
Leave a Reply