CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1       BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.2       STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 

1.3       AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

1.4       SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

1.5       SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

1.6       RESEARCH METHOD

1.7       LITERATURE REVIEW

1.8       SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTERS

CHAPTER TWO: NATURE AND SCOPE OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY UNDER THE LAND USE ACT

2.0       INTRODUCTION

2.1       TYPES OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY

2.1.1    STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

2.1.2    CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

2.2       CONCLUSION

CHAPTER THREE

ALIENATION OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY

3.0       INTRODUCTION

3.1       CONCEPT OF ALIENATION

3.2       DIFFERENT FORMS OF ALIENATION

3.2.1    TEMPORARY

3.2.2    PERMANENT ALIENATION

3.2.3    ALIENATION UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW 

3.2.4    ALIENATION UNDER STATUTORY LAWS

3.2.4.1 LAND (INSTRUMENT) REGISTRATION LAW

3.3       ISSUES ARISING ON ALIENATION OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY

3.3.1    GOVERNOR CONSENT

3.4       CONCLUSION

CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

4.1       SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

4.2       RECOMMENDATIONS 

4.3       CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE 

4.4       SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDIES 

4.5       CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 | LFN | LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
 | SCC | SUPREME COURT CASES
 | NLR | NIGERIAN LAW REPORT
 | LUA | LAND USE ACT

TABLE OF CASES

Adedeji v. National Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1998) 1 NWLR (p.11) p.212

Adepate v Babatunde (2002) FWLR pt. 91, 1503.

Adole v Boniface B. Gwar (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1099) 562 (a) 588 & 606

Awojugbade Light Industries Limited v. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.390) 379

Bankole vTapa (1961) 1 All NLR 140

Brossette Manufacturing Nig. Ltd. v. M/S Ola Ilemobola Limited &3 Ors. (2007) 30 NSCQLR 1137.

CSS Bookshops Ltd & Ors v Registered Trustees of Muslim Community of Rivers State & Ors (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt.992) 530.

Dewar v. Dewar (1975) 2 All E.R. 728 at 735

Director of Lands v Sohan (1952)1 TLR 631.

Edohoeket v Iyan (2010) 7 NWLR (pt. 1192) 43

Ilona v Idakwo (2003) 11 NWLR (pt. 830) 53.

Mr. Mojisola Edebiri v Prince Omotayo Daniel & another (2009) 8 NWLR (pt. 1142) 15 at 27.

NWLR Adedeji v National Bank (1989) 212

Ogunleye v Oni (1990) NWLR (Pt. 135)

Olagunju v Adesoye (2009) 9 NWLR (pt 1146) 225 (a) 265 (SC).

Olagunju v Adesoye (2009) 9 NWLR (pt 1146) 225.

Owoniboys Technical Services Limited v Union Bank of Nigeria (2003) 9 MJSC 38 AT 53-54, per Ejiwunmi, JSC. 

Alienation of rights of occupancy under the Land Use Act have been subject to issues and challenges particularly on the conflict of interpretation of the requirement of Governor’s consent provisions under sections 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act. This has led to conflicting decisions by the Nigerian Supreme court which is the apex court; a development that always puts the lower courts in dilemma as to which of the decisions of the court to apply. This study appraised and analyzed the consent requirement, the hardship meted out by its interpretation by the courts. The methodology adopted in this work is doctrinal which is library oriented.  The research discovered that apart from the dilemma faced by lower courts as to the conflict of decisions by the Supreme Court, the procedure for obtaining the Governor’s consent requirement is long, costly and unwieldy with too much bureaucratic bottlenecks. We recommended a review of the provisions of S. 21 and S. 22 of the Land Use Act.