- with readers working within the Oil & Gas industries
Although Nigerian land law is formally unified under the Land Use Act 1978 (LUA), real estate transactions—particularly in Lagos State—operate in practice under multiple, overlapping regimes. This fragmentation is most acute where land has a federal root of title but is later subjected to state "regularisation", producing a legal anomaly that exposes buyers, financiers, and developers to material uncertainty.
The structural dichotomy
The LUA vests all land within a state in the Governor (section 1), but expressly preserves land held by the Federal Government at the commencement of the Act (sections 49 and 51(2)). This creates two parallel regimes:
- State land, administered by the Governor through statutory rights of occupancy and registered at state land registries; and
- Federal land, retained by the Federation and historically registrable at federal registries through federal agencies.
In theory, these regimes are distinct. In practice, however, Lagos State has for decades implemented policies requiring holders of former federal grants—particularly in Ikoyi, Victoria Island, Banana Island and Festac—to "regularise" their titles under state law. This process typically involves the issuance of a fresh Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy over land whose root of title remains federal.
The consequence is not merely administrative duplication, but a deeper legal anomaly: two sovereign authorities asserting parallel proprietary control over the same land, without a statutory framework clearly extinguishing one interest upon the creation of the other.
A transaction-level illustration: Banana Island
The implications of this anomaly are best illustrated by a recent high-value transaction in Banana Island, Lagos, in which our firm advised on the buy-side.
An offer running into several millions of US dollars was made for a prime residential property. Title searches at the Lagos State Lands Registry confirmed that the property was covered by a Lagos State "regularised" Certificate of Occupancy, fully perfected and showing no encumbrances. From a state-law perspective, the title appeared clean, marketable, and financeable.
However, further diligence—prompted by the property's historic classification within an erstwhile federal acquisition corridor—revealed a critical complication. The preceding federal title, which pre-dated the state regularisation, had been used by the original allottee as security for a loan facility. That mortgage was registered at the Federal Registry, not 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 registries, nor any clear provision extinguishing federal interests upon state regularisation. The transaction therefore exposed the purchaser—and any prospective lender—to the risk that a federal-level encumbrance could survive state-issued title, notwithstanding full compliance with Lagos State land processes.
Why this constitutes a "special regime" problem
This example demonstrates that Nigerian real estate does not operate under a single, uniform regime, but under special regimes defined by the historical origin of land rather than its present use or location. In Lagos, this has produced at least three functional categories:
- 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 state-issued title exists alongside a surviving federal root.
The third category presents the greatest risk. Unlike customary land issues—which are well understood and largely addressable through consent and perfection—this hybrid category introduces institutional uncertainty. Even the most diligent title search is structurally incomplete unless conducted across multiple registries that are not legally synchronised.
Judicial uncertainty and market impact
The courts have yet to resolve this dichotomy conclusively. 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 case on procedural grounds. Subsequent litigation involving Ikoyi and Festac properties has turned largely on evidential issues, without establishing a clear hierarchy between federal and state titles.
As a result, market participants operate in a non-binary legal environment, where ownership certainty depends as much on historical land provenance as on current statutory compliance.
Implications for buyers, financiers, and developers
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 often struggle to reconcile Nigeria's system with internationally accepted land-registration norms.
Conclusion
While Nigerian land law is formally unified, Lagos real estate operates under fragmented and overlapping regimes. The coexistence of federal and state title 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, buyers, financiers, and developers in Lagos will continue to face structural uncertainty that conventional due diligence cannot entirely eliminate.
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.
