The Governor Of Kaduna State & Anor V. Mr. A. A. Dada (1986)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

This is an appeal by the Government of Kaduna State of Nigeria (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellants”) against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kaduna dated 30th Novemher 1984 in which that Court inter-alia declared as invalid, unlawful, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever, the purported revocation in respect of the Certificate of Occupancy No.6483 dated 8th May, 1954 granted to one Mr. A. A. Dada (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). In order to fully appreciate the whole situation, it is not only important, but necessary to set out briefly the facts of the whole case thus:

By a Certificate of Occupancy No. NC6483 dated 8th May, 1954 (Exh.1) the Appellants granted a statutory right of Occupancy to the Respondent in respect of No.6 Ahmadu Bello Way (Formerly No.6 Prince Edward Way) Kaduna for a term of 40 years with effect from 25th June, 1954 and at a rental of 27. 6pounds (now N54.60k) per annum. Apparently, a portion of the plot was dry land and as such developable while a stream passed through the remaining portion of the land and therefore rendered it waterlogged and unsuitable for development.

As a result of the condition of the other portion of the land, the Respondent petitioned for a reduction of the rent payable and it was subsequently granted and the Rent was reduced to a sum of 12.17pounds (now N25.70k). There was absolutely no special conditions attached to the grant except the usual one of erecting on the land a building worth 2,500pounds (now N5,000) within a period of two years of the grant: and the additional condition imposed consequent to the reduction of the rent that as regards the unsuitable portion of the land, the Respondent should maintain the stream with anti erosion measures and keep the area clean.

There was evidence that the Respondent observed those conditions by not only erecting buildings worth about N39,000.00 on the developable portion of the land; but also by taking necessary steps at a great expense to maintain the stream on the unsuitable portion with anti-erosion measures and to keep it clean. Later, a dispute arose between the parties as to the proper maintenance of the unsuitable area of the land. That dispute culminated in an approval of the revocation of the grant of the whole plot being given by the Appellants vide a letter No. NCL/2111/146 of 16th February, 1977, subject to excising the undeveloped portion of the piece of land and the regranting of the developed portion to the Respondent; and on the ground that the undeveloped portion of the land was required by the Appellants for purpose of public use (See Exh.A).

As a result of a petition made later by the Respondent, the Appellants suspended the notice of revocation by giving the Respondent a period of twelve (12) months within which he should carry out some meaningful development on the undeveloped (though undevelopable) portion of the land; and that on failing to comply with that condition, the original notice of revocation would become effective.

There was also evidence that thereafter, the Respondent spent a substantial sum of money to reclaim and stabilise the unsuitable portion of the land; but apparently the Appellants were not satisfied with what he did. Consequently, they proceeded to carry out the revocation of the land by a Deed of Revocation – Exh.9 dated 28th February, 1981 which tells the whole story thus:

“Whereas by a Certificate of Occupancy under the hand of the Minister of Land and Survey, Northern Nigeria, Federal Republic of Nigeria, dated the 8th day of May, 1954 and numbered (which said certificate of occupancy was registered as No.34 at Page 34 in Volume 42 (Certificates of Occupancy) of the Lands Registry in the office at Kaduna) it was certified that Mr. Adeyemi Alimi Dada of L. 11 Ibadan Street Kaduna was entitled to a right of occupancy over the land at Plot No.6 Ahmudu Bello Way Kaduna on the plan numbered A6998 and more particularly described in the schedule to the said certificate of occupancy;

AND WHEREAS a storm-water channel runs through the said piece of land thereby rendering the greater part of it unsuitable for development at the time of allocation.

AND WHEREAS as a result of that physical limitations, only 0.640 of an acre being the developable part of the 1.365 acre site, was initially allocated to Mr. A. A. Dada.

AND WHEREAS under the cover of his letter dated 3rd day of December 1954, Mr. A.A. Dada requested that the undevelopable part of the site be incorporated in the one earlier allocated to him. AND THAT he AGREED, in the event of approval, keep the area considered undevelopable clean and to perform such necessary anti-erosion measures as might be desired by the authorities.

AND WHEREAS Mr. A.A. Dada’s request was approved subject to those conditions he (Mr. A. A. Dada) covenanted to implement in his letter dated 3rd December 1954. AND particularly subject to payment of a nominal rent of only 10k per acre per annum over the undevelopable portion and the revision thereof to economic rent whenever the said portion was considered suitable for developments during the unexpired residue of the term granted under the said Certificate of Occupancy.

AND WHEREAS it was discovered that Mr. A.A. Dada had not been observing and performing the undertakings which he agreed to observe and perform in his letter dated 3rd December 1954. AND as a result the Right of Occupancy was revoked with a view to excising the undevelopable portion for public and the regrant of the developed portion back to Mr. A.A. Dada. The said revocation was conveyed under the cover of letter No. NCL.2111/146 of 16th February, 1977.

AND WHEREAS on receipt of the letter of revocation Mr. A.A. Dada petitioned to me under the cover of his letter dated 26th February 1977 appealing for the re-instatment of his Certificate of Occupancy.

AND WHEREAS I considered the said petition and approved the reinstatment of the Certificate of Occupancy on the following conditions:-