Double Allocation Of Land, Conflicting Titles And The Doctrine Of Priority: Lessons From Olabanji v. The Honourable Minister, Federal Capital Territory & 2 Ors.

Introduction 

Double allocation or double grant of land is a conundrum that has, unfortunately, come to stay in Nigeria.¹ It arises where the Governor of a State or the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory² advertently or inadvertently grants right of occupancy to two different persons, whether natural or body corporate, over the same parcel of land. This creates a situation where two competing parties hold title documents over the same piece of land and these documents may come in the form of Certificate of Occupancy, Allocation Letter, Offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy and Acceptance Letters, Deed of Assignment, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, to mention but a few.

This unfortunate situation happens more frequently in the allocation of land in government layouts and estates and it is caused by a number of factors ranging from poor record keeping, administrative errors, negligence, corrupt schemes, and sometimes fraudulent and dishonest actions of some government officials.³ Our law reports are replete with cases of double allocation of land in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).⁴ Recently, a prosecution witness testified at the Federal High Court in Abuja about a fraudulent land deal in which he lost N62 million to a realtor and the scam involved forged documents and land records that mysteriously “disappeared” from the official digital data repository of the Abuja Geographic Information Systems (AGIS) when he returned to re-verify ownership.⁵

In this context, the decision in Col. Ajibade Emmanuel Olabanji v. The Honourable Minister Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, and Aminu Hamza Nafiu (“Olabanji’s Case”)⁶ is instructive as it addresses the allocation of a plot of land in the FCT to two different persons by the same allocating authority. This paper reviews the recent decision in Olabanji’s Case, analysing how the court resolved double allocation, conflicting titles, and the doctrine of priority. It highlights actionable insights from the case and makes useful recommendations to prospective land purchasers, first allottees, second allottees, and allocating authorities in Nigeria on how to address the systemic issue of double allocation of land.

2. Case Summary of Olabanji’s Case

This case has to do with who has a better and valid allocation of Plot 1157, Katampe District, FCT (“the disputed plot”) between the Claimant (Col. Ajibade Emmanuel Olabanji) and the 3^rd Defendant/Counterclaimant (Aminu Hamza Nafiu). Both the Claimant and the 3^rd Defendant/Counterclaimant claimed the disputed plot and appeared to have based their respective claims of title on production of title documents. Interestingly, the title documents of both parties were derived from the same source: the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants. Within the context of laws governing land tenure in the FCT, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are the allocating authority.

The case of the Claimant is that following his application for a Statutory Right of Occupancy in the FCT, he was granted an allocation or offer of terms/conveyance of approval of the disputed plot by the Minister of the FCT on 15^th November 1993. He duly participated in the recertification exercise of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, and, upon his retirement, he liaised with his bankers to finance the development of the plot wherein they engaged surveyors who went to the land and indicated existence of a substructure. He thereafter went to AGIS where his allocation was confirmed, and his Solicitors also wrote to the Department of Development Control of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and complained about the trespass. The Claimant testified that on 22^nd and 23^rd January 2015, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants made demands for Ground Rent from him, and he paid the said Ground Rent.

The Claimant further testified that he instructed his Solicitors to ascertain the status of his plot wherein they paid and conducted a search and his ownership of the disputed plot was confirmed, with no encumbrances. Despite these complaints, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants did not respond or take any action. He then instructed his Solicitors to conduct another search on the property wherein the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants now stated that they had revoked his allocation “in view of development on the plot as at the date of this report”. This led the Claimant to instruct his Solicitors to write to the Minister of the FCT to complain about the illegal revocation, and subsequently, instituted this suit for declaration of title to the disputed plot.

The case of the 3^rd Defendant/Counterclaimant (Aminu Hamza Nafiu) is that he is the owner of the disputed plot and developed the plot, which is now at over 80% completion. He testified that on 6^th January 1994, Mrs. Sussanah Oyo, the first allottee and his predecessor-in-title, was offered and allocated the disputed plot and issued a certificate of occupancy. He further testified that the said Sussanah Oyo donated an Irrevocable Power of Attorney to him in respect of the disputed plot on 7^th March 2000. However, at trial, the letter of offer dated 6^th January 1994 was not tendered but a copy of the Recertification and Reissuance of Certificate of Occupancy Acknowledgement together with a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy dated 26^th May 1999, and issued to Mrs. Sussanah Oyo, was tendered and admitted in evidence.

The 3^rd Defendant/Counterclaimant stated that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants issued demand notices for Ground Rent dated 22^nd May 2005 and 19^th May 2015 and that he paid accordingly. He mentioned and relied on his Building Plans for the plot; the Settlement of Building Plans Fees issued by the Department of Development Control of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants; and the payment receipts for the fees which led to the issuance of Building Plan Approval dated 8^th February 2012. He counterclaimed for declaration of title to the disputed plot.

Surprisingly, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, who are the allocating authority of lands in the FCT, did not participate in the proceedings. As such, nothing was projected by them in denying or controverting the case of the Claimant and that of the 3^rd Defendant/Counterclaimant.

3. Decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Olabanji’s Case

Prefatorily, the High Court of the FCT noted that the allocation in this case relates to the same parcel of land and that the allocation to the Claimant was the first in time. The Court held that “there cannot be concurrent ownership of the same disputed plot by two parties”⁷ and proceeded to deprecate the “runaway” attitude of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in this case⁸ because their evidence would have assisted in resolving the confusion they created via double allocation.

The Court invoked the settled position of the law that where two or more competing documents of title upon which parties to a land dispute rely for their claim originate from a common grantor, the doctrine of priorities pursuant to the well-known maxim, Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure,⁹ dictates that the first in time takes priority.¹⁰ The Court, on this point, held as follows:

In this case on the evidence, Exhibit P1, the allocation to Claimant is dated 15^th November, 1993 and issued before the offer issued (sic) Sussanah Oyo said to be 6^th January, 1994 which as stated earlier was not tendered and that aspect of the pleading is deemed abandoned. Again, on the evidence Exhibit P1 predates the certificate of occupancy issued to the same Sussanah Oyo dated 26^th May, 1999 vide Exhibit D1b.

On the authorities, the allocation to Claimant of Plot 1157 must take priority in the circumstances.¹¹

The Court found that there was no proof of issuance of revocation notice, and also, no proof of service of revocation notice on the Claimant. For that reason, it resolved that the Claimant’s title to the disputed plot remained valid and subsisting. The Court further held that a right of occupancy, whether evidenced by a certificate of occupancy or yet to be so evidenced by a certificate of occupancy, “cannot be lost by revocation without being notified first in writing and the subsequent revocation must also be notified to him in writing.”¹² Thus, any other method deployed other than as prescribed by law will render the revocation a nullity.

The Court concluded that since there was no revocation of the Claimant’s interest in the disputed plot, there cannot legally be another allocation or issuance of a certificate of occupancy (Exhibit D1b) to the 3^rd Defendant in the face of the existing grant to the Claimant via Exhibit P1. Consequently, the Counterclaim of the 3^rd Defendant was dismissed in its entirety while the Claimant’s reliefs for declaration of title, nullification of the subsequent grant of right of occupancy, perpetual injunction, trespass to land, general damages, and cost of action were granted by the Court.

4. Take-home Lessons from the Decision in Olabanji’s Case

Commendable judicial effort was made in Olabanji’s Case to restore order and dispense justice in a system beset by institutional shortcomings. The following valuable lessons are now placed at our fingertips:

• The holder of a certificate of occupancy over a piece of land is entitled to occupation of the land, to the exclusion of every other person, until and unless the Certificate is set aside.
• Where contending parties rely on documents of title traceable to the same source, grantor, or allocating authority, the first in time will take priority. Put differently, where a case of double allocation arises, the first in time shall prevail, unless it had been revoked before the grant of the subsequent one.
• The revocation of an earlier allocation ought to precede a second/subsequent allocation.
• Where the first allocation was not revoked by the grantor or allocating authority, then the second/subsequent allocation will be a nullity. To this effect, the first allottee can apply to the court to cancel or set aside the second allocation.
• Where a second allottee institutes an action for declaration of title to land, the first allottee should not only defend the suit, the first allottee should counterclaim for a declaration of title to the same piece of land.¹³

5. Conclusion

In cases of double allocation of land from a common grantor or allocating authority, two renowned maxims safeguard the position of a first allottee and defeat the claim of a second allottee and his successors-in-title to better title. The first, as it relates to both the second allottee and the allocating authority, is Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure: he who is earlier in time is stronger in law. The second maxim is Nemo dat quod non habet: you cannot give what you do not have. A second allottee who has a defective title alienates or passes nothing to his successor-in-title. Similarly, where an allocating authority validly grants a right of occupancy over a specific plot of land to a first allottee, the allocating authority’s power of allocation over that land is exhausted. A subsequent or second grant of the same plot to a second allottee without a prior valid revocation of the first grant is invalid, void, and of no legal effect and passes nothing to the second allottee.

In the recent case of Malami v. Ohikhuare,¹⁴ a case involving double allocation of land in the FCT, the Supreme Court applied these foundational maxims and dispensed justice in the following words:

            The law is settled that “no one gives who possesses not”. It is founded on the maxim: Nemo dat quod non habet which translates to “he gives nothing who has nothing”, The grantor who has no title in law cannot validly give to the grantee the title he does not have, in the first place.

 …. The Nigerian Land Law has this fundamental principle that once there is a subsisting title or Right of Occupancy any subsequent adverse title issued in purported competition with the subsisting primary title is a nullity…. Flowing from this fundamental principle is yet another, equally very forceful, to the effect that: where a common grantor, as the 2^nd respondent was, subsequently vests title in favour of another grantee in respect of the same parcel of land during the subsistence of the first or primary title, the subsequent title is invalid….¹⁵

6. Recommendations

Given the commentary made in this paper, this author makes the following recommendations to prospective land purchasers, first allottees, second allottees, and allocating authorities:

• A prospective land purchaser can avoid the double allocation conundrum by engaging a lawyer to verify the root of title and conduct due diligence search at the relevant land registry. A licensed surveyor can also be engaged to “chart” the desired property and confirm that the survey coordinates do not overlap with existing titles.
• When conducting due diligence for land in the FCT, a prospective land purchaser must actively investigate the property’s historical allocation. Even if a search report reveals no active encumbrances or prior interests, the purchaser is legally obligated to verify the identity of the previous allottee.¹⁶ This is because land records in the FCT are strictly documented and governed by laws. A failure to look beyond a blank search report will legally impute constructive notice of any hidden defects or competing claims onto the purchaser.¹⁷
• Once a purchaser or an allottee discovers that his parcel of land suffers from the virus of double allocation, such a person should promptly engage the services of a lawyer who will render appropriate legal advice on how to navigate the thorny path of double allocation.
• A first allottee should not wait until dragged to court by a second allottee. The firs allottee should brief a lawyer to initiate an action in court for declaration of title once apprised of the double allocation.
• A second allottee, especially if untainted by inappropriate conduct, can sue the grantor or allocating authority for breach of contract, claiming an allocation of alternative land, or a full refund of the purchase price along with damages.
• The allocating authority should be cautious and prudent when allocating lands within the FCT. Undoubtedly, the process is subject to streamlined record-keeping.¹⁸ With this reality, it is unacceptable to justify and defend a subsequent allocation of an unrevoked parcel of land that was initially allocated to another party. A clarion call is made to the allocating authority in the FCT to reevaluate the process of allocating lands to avoid recurrent incidences of double allocation.
• In clear-cut cases where a subsequent allocation is made to a party, in error, remedial steps should be taken by the allocating authority to mitigate the losses suffered by such a subsequent allottee by allocating an alternative parcel of land.
• An allocating authority should promptly address and amicably resolve complaints of double allocation to prevent the severe financial, emotional, and administrative costs of protracted litigation.
• While the FCT land allocation database is largely digitalised under the AGIS framework, the system’s effectiveness is impaired by bureaucratic bottlenecks, backlogs, and poor public access. Extensive reforms are necessary to improve transparency and traceability. These reforms should incorporate capacity building training for staff; clear public feedback mechanisms; and the decentralisation of the database by creating open, searchable online portal where citizens can securely check the status of allocations and verify title to land without relying on physical AGIS Legal Search queues.

Footnotes

^{1  See, Ogu Oboshi, ‘Land Allocation Crisis in Abuja: The Scourge of Double Allocation and Encroachment Under the Watch of the FCT Minister’ (Barristerng, 27 May 2025) (https://barristerng.com/land-allocation-crisis-in-abuja-the-scourge-of-double-allocation-and-encroachment-under-the-watch-of-the-fct-minister/) accessed 9 May 2026.}

^{2  The power to allocate land in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) is vested solely in the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, who delegates this executive power to the Minister of the FCT. See, s. 297(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); ss. 1(3) and 18 of the Federal Capital Territory Act, Cap. F6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004; and ss. 49 and 50 of the Land Use Act, Cap. L5, LFN 2004. See also, Rahamaniya United (Nig.) Ltd v. Min., FCT (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1806) 481 (SC) 495 [C]; Eribenne v. Ugoh (2026) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2043) 485 (SC) 531 [E] – [H] and 532 [A] – [B]; and A.D.H. Ltd. v. Min., FCT (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 493 (SC) 514 [E] – [F].}

^{3   See, Abiodun Akinyemi, Land Litigation in Nigeria (Practice & Procedure) (Renaissance Law Publishers Limited 2022) 257.}

^{4    See the following cases on this point: Malami v. Ohikhuare (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 132 (SC); Alawiye v. Min., FCT (2026) 3 NWLR (Pt. 2030) 71 (SC); and Zainab D. Dodo & Anor. v. The Hon. Minister of the FCT & Anor., unreported judgment in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/551/2013 delivered by Honourable Justice Abubakar Hussaini Musa, J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on 6th February 2024, accessible via: (https://www.fcthighcourt.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZAINAB-B.-DODO-1-OR-VS-THE-HON.-MIN-OF-THE-FEDERAL-CAPITAL-TERRITORY-1-OR-TITLE-TO-LAND-.pdf) accessed 9 May 2026.}

^{5   See, Ndidiamaka Ede, ‘Land Records Disappeared from AGIS System After Abuja Realtor Received N62m Payment’ (Premium Times, 22 July 2025) (https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/808717-land-records-disappeared-from-agis-system-after-abuja-realtor-received-n62m-payment-witness.html) accessed 9 May 2026.}

^{6    Unreported Judgment in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2978/2015 delivered by Honourable Justice Abubakar Idris Kutigi, J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on 25th February 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Olabanji’s Case”).}

^{7    Ibid 19.}

^{8   The 1st and 2nd Defendants are the Honourable Minister, Federal Capital Territory, and the Federal Capital Development Authority, respectively.}

^{9   This literally means, “he who is first has the strongest right”.}

^{10  Reliance was placed by the Court on the following cases: Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 135) 745; Uzor v. D. F. (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1217) 533; and Gege v. Nande (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 989) 256.}

^{11  Olabanji’s Case (n7) 22 (emphasis added).}

^{12   Olabanji’s Case (n7) 26.}

^{13  The rationale behind this position is that in an action for declaration of title to land, a defendant who merely files a defence and succeeds in getting the plaintiff’s case dismissed does not automatically receive a declaration of title from the court. See, Pada v. Galadima & Anor. (2017) LPELR – 42761 (SC) 25 – 26 [D] – [C].}

^{14  (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 132 (SC).}

^{15  Ibid. 178 [E] – [H], (Eko, JSC) [emphasis added].}

^{16  See, Malami v. Ohikhuare (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 132 (SC) 174 – 175 [H] – [E], (Peter-Odili, JSC), where the Supreme Court iterated this legal duty to ask for who the previous allottee was.}

^{17  See, Jiwul v. Dimlong (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 824) 154 (CA) 184 [C], where Honourable Justice Nzeako, JCA, held that “… the law attributes constructive notice to such a purchaser as the defendant. The law expects a purchaser of adjoining land to that which another to his knowledge occupies, to make enquiries as to title from that other.” (Emphasis added)}

^{18  For instance, see the 10th Schedule, Rules 4(iv) and 5(iii) of the Federal Capital Territory Land Use Regulations 2004, Cap. 15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Revised Edition) 2010 which states that all land allocations and revocations in the FCT “shall” be documented in the official digital data repository at AGIS.}

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.