1. Introduction
An individual or entity that desires, intends, or is actively negotiating to buy a parcel of land in the Federal Capital Territory (“FCT”) must apply great care and show diligence in every stage of the transaction. This is because a purchaser has a legal duty to make inquiries about a property he/she intends to purchase and this duty is not a fanciful wrangling. However, prospective purchasers of land in the FCT may not pay attention to the seemingly harmless detail concerning who allocates the land and by what authority. “Area Council Land” and “Chief’s Paper”1 are notorious phrases used in the real estate community in the FCT to describe the grantor and/or land allocating authority in certain communities and remote areas. This practice inevitably births the following questions: are Area Council2 titles valid in the FCT? Does “Chief’s Paper” confer deemed grant of customary right of occupancy on a purchaser in the FCT? Must all lands in the FCT be allocated by the Honourable Minister of the FCT?
On 25th October 2024, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory delivered judgment in the case of Emmanuel Akanom Enebong (Doing business under the name and style of Kabom Developers) v. Federal Capital Territory Administration & 4 Ors. (“Enebong’s Case”),3 and clarified this overlooked and often misconstrued area of law. In this case, the Plaintiff relied on a grant of land made by the Chairman of Bwari Area Council via two Customary Rights of Occupancy, while the 5th Defendant relied on a statutory grant made by the Honourable Minister of the FCT. The Court, with remarkable certainty, decided that all land in the FCT is “urban land” and that without allocation or grant by the Honourable Minister of the FCT, there is no way any person or group of persons could acquire land in the FCT.
This paper considers the relevant factual and legal basis for the decision in Enebong’s Case, by highlighting/evaluating the case for each of the parties and their respective legal submissions. The reasoning of the Court will be discussed and thereafter, the implications of this decision will be set out for the benefit of prospective purchasers of land, land owners, real estate developers, and interested members of the public. Furthermore, this paper comments on the case law trajectory on this point before and after the decision in Enebong’s Case and, in line with appellate court decisions, proceeds to answer the question, “who can allocate land in the FCT?”
The Case of the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff (Emmanuel Akanom Enebong) contended that in the year 2001, the 2nd Defendant (the Honourable Minister of the FCT) allocated 4 plots of land to him in his business name “Kabom Developers” and the Zonal Land Manager of the Bwari Area Council signed the letters of allocation. The Plaintiff stated that the plots were numbered as Plots 48 and 51, measuring about 2,500 square meters, and Plots 49 and 50, measuring about 1,250 square meters at Kubwa Annex Layout, Kubwa, Bwari Area Council, FCT.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that in the year 2003, he was issued two Certificates of Occupancy for the said plots in his business name, and though the Certificates of Occupancy were erroneously described as “customary”, they are in fact “statutory”. The Plaintiff stated that for reasons of convenience, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants combined two plots in one Certificate of Occupancy resulting in Plots 48 and 51 and Plots 49 and 50 covered by two Certificates of Occupancy. On or about 9th July 2006, the Plaintiff complied with the requirement of the 2nd Defendant for regularisation of land titles and documentation of Area Council Land within Abuja and submitted the Certificates of Occupancy for Plots 48 and 51 and 49 and 50 for regularisation at the Land Registry Department in the FCT. The Plaintiff pleaded that the purpose of the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ regularisation was to unify the land titles in FCT and rectify those land titles that were allocated by the 1st and 2nd Defendants through the 3rd Defendant.
To view the full article please click here.
* David Andy Essien is a Senior Associate, Cross-Departmental at S. P. A. Ajibade & Co., Abuja, Nigeria.
Footnotes
1. This is a colloquial expression used in the real estate community in the FCT to describe any bundle of documents issued to a purchaser of land by the Chief or Head of a community in the FCT as proof of payment, and possibly, document of title.
2. Area Councils provide grassroots administration for the FCT, equivalent to the role of Local
Government Areas (LGAs) in the 36 states of Nigeria. The FCT has six Area Councils, namely: Abaji Area Council, Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC), Bwari Area Council, Gwagwalada Area Council, Kuje Area Council, and Kwali Area Council. See, ss3(4) and (6), 297(1), 303, and Part II of the First Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) [“CFRN”].
3. Unreported Judgment in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2445/2013 delivered by Honourable Justice Y. Halilu, J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on 25th October 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Enebong’s Case”). This can be accessed via this link: https://www.fcthighcourt.gov.ng/wpcontent/uploads/2025/03/MR.-EMMANUEL-AKANOM-ENEBONG-VS-FEDERAL-CAPITALTERRITORY-ADMINISTRATION-4-ORS.-DECLARATORY-RELIEFS-TITLE-TO-LAND-.pdf accessed 27 July 2026.
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.
