It is the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor that should apply for consent to for the transfer and conveyance of his title to the land to another or over a mortgaged the property. Nnaji V. Aneke (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 430) 269; Odeleye V. Adepegbe (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 330; Kaduna Textiles Ltd. V. Obi (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 621) 138; Co-operative & Commercial Bank (Nig.) Ltd. V. Onwuchekwa (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 647) 65.
Any sale or alienation of interest in land without the consent of the governor used to be said to be null and void, but the current position is that, like in unregistered registrable instrument, it can vest equitable interest in the purchaser. See section 26 of the Land Use Act Cap.L5 LFN, 2004; UBN Plc. V. Astra Builders (W.A) Ltd. (2010) NWLR (Pt. 1186) 1.
The answer to this question, when just looking at letters of the relevant laws, as formerly obtained, would have generally been that it would not be lawful for the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sub-lease, or otherwise whatsoever to anyone else without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained. Mbanefo V. Agbu (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 238. Section 22(1) Land Use Act Cap. L5 (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria), 2004. The above principle has, by judicial interpretation of those relevant laws, been radically altered and limited to only lands in which government and/or the overriding public interest is involved. The Governor’s consent is no more required in all other private individual/family land transactions. See Ibrahim v. Obaje (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1660) 389 @ 412.
The law used to be that any alienation, assignment, sub-lease, or lease of a right of occupancy without first seeking and obtaining the consent of the governor is null and void. Union Bank Nig. Ltd. V. Ayodare & Sons Nig. Ltd. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 567; Awojugbagbe Light Industries Ltd. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 390) p.379. Section 26 of the Land Use Act Cap L5 LFN 2004. But that has all changed with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ibrahim v. Obaje (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 16600 389 @ 412 now limits the mandatory requirement of the Governor’s consent to land title conveyance that the government is involved in or has some element of overriding public interest in it.
That used to be the case, but largely not anymore. The law has been changed by the recent Supreme Court Authority in Ibrahim V. Obaje (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1660) 389 @ 412 where the Apex Court held that the clear intendment of Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act of 1978 dealing with the requirement of Governor’s Consent is not to limit or rob parties of their rights to deal with their private property or be denied the fruits thereof in a non-contentious transaction. The Court has now held that Governor’s Consent is not needed to authenticate and perfect transfer of title to land between private individuals where there is no issue of overriding public interest involved. The Court very strongly condemned a situation where land vendors would be the ones who, acting mala fide, always attempt to frustrate and defeat purchasers’ rights by seeking to hide under Section 22(1) to exploit their own failures to the detriment of land buyers. The Apex Court had done a strict interpretation of Section 22 of this law in the case of Savannah Bank (Nig.) Ltd V. Armel O. Ajilo (1989) ANLR 26 in which the Respondent borrowed money from the bank with his house as security for the loan. When he defaulted and the bank moved in to sell the house as stated in the loan agreement, he (the borrower/Respondent) raised the issue of the illegality of the loan agreement on the grounds that the transfer of title of his landed property was without the Governor’s Consent. The Supreme Court relying only on the letters of the law so to speak, grudgingly found for him. This raised not a few eye brows – the illogicality and immorality in it rankled for a long time. The Court found a good occasion to make some correction in the case of Awojugbagbe V. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 390) 379 where it had held that any agreement between parties to transfer or assign title of Statutory Right of Occupancy without the Governor’s Consent is not null and void but only incomplete or inchoate pending perfection by the Governor’s Consent. That was the half way ‘good’ stand before the total correction in Ibrahim V. Obaje (supra)