Introduction
Although Nigerian land law is formally unified under the Land Use Act 1978 (LUA), real estate transactions in Lagos State operate in practice under multiple and overlapping title regimes. This fragmentation is most acute where land with a federal root of title is later subjected to state-level regularisation, producing a hybrid legal structure that exposes buyers, financiers, and developers to material uncertainty. In commercial practice, Lagos State Certificates of Occupancy are often treated as conclusive evidence of title. However, this assumption overlooks the survival of antecedent federal interests that may continue to subsist outside the state land registry framework. The result is a structural anomaly that conventional due diligence may not fully detect, particularly in historic federal acquisition corridors such as Ikoyi, Victoria Island, Banana Island, and Festac.
The Structural Dichotomy under the Land Use Act
Section 1 of the Land Use Act vests all land within a state in the Governor to be held in trust for the people. That vesting is, however, expressly qualified. Sections 49 and 51(2) of the Act preserve land vested in the Federal Government or its agencies at the commencement of the Act. This statutory architecture produces two parallel regimes: state land, administered through statutory rights of occupancy granted by the Governor and registrable at state land registries; and federal land, retained by the Federation and historically registrable through federal institutions. In theory, these regimes are distinct. In practice, Lagos State has, for decades, required holders of former federal grants to regularise their titles under state law by procuring fresh Certificates of Occupancy. Critically, this regularisation process does not operate pursuant to any federal statutory extinguishment mechanism. It superimposes a state proprietary instrument upon land whose historical root remains federal, without a clear legislative provision divesting the Federation of its antecedent proprietary interest.
A Transaction-Level Illustration: Banana Island
The implications of this legal structure are best illustrated by a recent high-value residential transaction in Banana Island, Lagos, on which our firm advised. The property was covered by a Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy that had been fully perfected. Searches at the Lagos State Lands Registry disclosed no encumbrances. From a state-law perspective, the title appeared clean, marketable, and financeable. However, further diligence—prompted by the property's historical classification within a former federal acquisition corridor—revealed that the preceding federal title had been used as security for a loan facility. That mortgage was registered at a federal registry rather than at the Lagos State Lands Registry and therefore did not appear in any state-level search. The result was a legally unsettling position: at the state registry, the land appeared unencumbered; at the federal registry, the same land remained subject to a subsisting charge. There is no statutory mechanism mandating harmonisation between federal and state land registries, nor any clear provision extinguishing federal interests upon state regularisation. The purchaser and any prospective lender were therefore exposed to the risk that a federal-level encumbrance could survive notwithstanding full compliance with Lagos State land processes.
Special Regimes and the Problem of Hybrid Title
This example demonstrates that Lagos real estate does not operate under a single, uniform regime. Instead, distinct regimes emerge based on historical provenance rather than present statutory compliance. In practical terms, Lagos land may be categorised into three functional classes: pure state land, where title originates exclusively from the Governor; pure federal land, still clearly vested in the Federation; and hybrid or regularised land, where a state-issued title exists alongside a surviving federal root. The third category presents the greatest risk. Unlike customary land disputes—which are well understood and largely resolvable through consent and perfection—hybrid land introduces institutional uncertainty. Even exhaustive due diligence may remain structurally incomplete unless conducted across multiple registries that are not legally synchronised.
Judicial Treatment and the Limits of Regularisation
The Nigerian courts have not yet conclusively resolved this federal–state dichotomy. In Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General of Lagos State, the Supreme Court declined to pronounce on the substantive legality of Lagos State's regularisation of federal land, striking out the matter on procedural grounds. More broadly, Nigerian appellate jurisprudence has consistently affirmed that a Certificate of Occupancy does not create title but merely evidences it. In Ogunleye v Oni, the Supreme Court held that a certificate cannot cure defects in root of title. Similarly, in Savannah Bank v Ajilo, the Court emphasised that statutory consent does not override substantive proprietary rights. In Adole v Gwar, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that documentation cannot defeat an earlier vested interest. Although these authorities do not directly determine the federal–state regularisation issue, they reinforce the vulnerability of state-issued titles where antecedent proprietary interests subsist at another sovereign level.
Market Consequences for Buyers, Financiers, and Developers
For buyers, particularly in high-value Lagos transactions, reliance on state-issued documentation alone may be insufficient where land falls within historic federal corridors. For financiers, the risk is acute. A lender relying solely on state registry searches may unknowingly take security over land burdened by a federal charge. Conversely, insisting on federal clearance for all Lagos transactions is commercially impractical and legally ambiguous. Developers are forced to price in latent title risk, while foreign investors—accustomed to unified land registration systems—often struggle to reconcile Nigeria's fragmented framework with internationally accepted standards. This divergence is reflected in the World Bank's Doing Business indicators on property registration, which emphasise unified registries and conclusive title certainty as key determinants of investment security.
Conclusion
While Nigerian land law is formally unified under the Land Use Act, Lagos real estate operates under fragmented and overlapping title regimes. The coexistence of federal and state land systems—without harmonised registries or a statutory extinguishment mechanism—creates a legal anomaly that undermines certainty of title. Until federal and state land records are integrated, or the legal effect of state regularisation on federal interests is conclusively resolved by legislation or judicial pronouncement, buyers, financiers, and developers in Lagos will continue to face structural uncertainty that conventional due diligence cannot entirely eliminate.
Key Takeaways
- State-issued Certificates of Occupancy do not automatically extinguish prior federal proprietary interests.
- Hybrid or regularised titles may coexist with undisclosed federal encumbrances.
- State registry searches alone may be structurally insufficient in historic federal acquisition corridors.
- Nigerian jurisprudence confirms that certificates evidence title but do not cure defects in root.
- International benchmarks emphasise unified registries and conclusive title certainty as investment fundamentals.
Endnotes & References
1. Land Use Act 1978, ss 1, 49, 51(2) (LFN 2004).
2. Lagos State Government, Land Regularisation Policies and Practice Notes.
3. O Owoade, Land Law in Nigeria (2nd edn, University Press 2018) 233–240.
4. A Omotola, 'Title Registration and Legal Certainty in Nigerian Land Transactions' (2016) 4 Nigerian Journal of Property Law 45.
5. Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General of Lagos State (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt 833) 1.
6. Ogunleye v Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt 135) 745.
7. Savannah Bank v Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt 97) 305.
8. Adole v Gwar (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt 1099) 562.
9. World Bank, Doing Business in Nigeria: Registering Property (Washington DC, 2020).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
