ADOLE v GWAR (SC 302/2002) [2008] NGSC 7 (4 April 2008)

**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA** **On Friday, the 4th day of April 2008** SC 302/2002 BETWEEN ADOLE ............................................................................................... APPELLANT And GWAR .................................................................................................. RESPONDENT **Before:** | Sylvester Umaru Onu; Dahiru Musdapher; Aloma Mariam Mukhtar; Ikechi Francis Ogbuagu; Pius Olayiwola Aderemi, JJSC ---|--- **ISSUES** _Whether the appellant had proved that the land in dispute fell within the Greater Makurdi Urban Area._ _Whether the statutory certificate of occupancy issued to the appellant was validly granted._ _Whether the appellant’s certificate of occupancy granted under section 5(2) of the Land Use Act extinguished the respondent’s title as deemed title holder under section 34(2) of the Land Use Act, 1978._ _Whether the Governor, in the exercise of his power under section 5(2) of the Land Use Act, was obliged to first comply with section 28 of the Act where there existed two title-holders to the same land, claiming title by statutory right of occupancy or a certificate of occupancy granted by the Governor under section 5(1)._ _Whether the grant of the certificate of occupancy extinguished all existing rights to the use and occupation of the land, including a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor pursuant to section 34(2) of the Act by virtue of the provisions of section 5(2) of the Land Use Act._ _Whether the appellant’s right of occupancy was superior to that of the respondent’s, and therefore valid._ **FACTS** _The appellant (as original plaintiff) claimed that the respondent had trespassed on his land along David Mark Bye Pass, Makurdi. The trial court awarded title to the appellant with~~N~~ 15 000 damages and a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, his agents or servants, from entering upon the property. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, holding that while the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 5131 in terms of section 5(2) of the Land Use Act, 1978 in favour of the appellant had not been made in error, he had failed to prove that the land was situated within the Makurdi Urban Area as designated under the Benue State Land Use (Designation of Capital as Greater Makurdi) Order, 1984 (1984 Order), and, therefore, failed to prove that his title was superior to that of the respondent. The appellant dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court._ **HELD** Sylvester Umaru Onu, JSC **(DELIVERED THE LEADING JUDGMENT)** ; with D. Musdapher, A.M. Mukhtar, I.F. Ogbuagu, P.O. Aderemi, JJSC concurring **1.****When appellant’s certificate of occupancy co-existed with the respondent’s statutory right of occupancy** The certificate of occupancy granted to the appellant, under section 5(2) of the Land Use Act, was validly granted and co-existed with the respondent’s deemed statutory right of occupancy, one must of necessity be valid. A certificate of occupancy issued on the Land Use Act cannot be said to be conclusive evidence of any interest or valid title to land in favour of grantee; it is only _prima facie_ evidence of such right, interest or title and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid, null and void. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **2.****Certificate of occupancy not proof of geographical location of land** The Benue State Land Use (Designation of Capital as Greater Makurdi) Order, 1984 declared Makurdi an urban area within a 16km radius. Section 5(1)(_a_) of the Land Use Act, 1978 empowered the Governor to grant a certificate of occupancy to any person whether or not in an urban area. The certificate of occupancy held by the appellant was not conclusive that the land in issue was within the 16km radius of Greater Makurdi, nor within the Makurdi urban area, as not all lands within the area called Makurdi were urban lands. There was, therefore, need for the appellant to prove that the land in dispute fell within the Makurdi Urban Area. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **3.****Appellant obliged to have pleaded geographical location of land** The appellant was obliged to have pleaded and proved that the land in dispute fell within the Makurdi Urban Area. He relied solely on the certificate of occupancy. Therefore, the finding in this regard by the Court of Appeal had to be upheld. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **4.****Where respondent holds statutory right of occupancy** As the respondent had developed the land before the coming into existence of the Land Use Act, by the operation of section 34 of the Act the respondent became the holder, or was deemed to be the holder of a statutory right of occupancy and also that even by traditional history and long possession, he has a better title to the land. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **5.****Statutory right of occupancy not extinguished by issue of certificate of occupancy** A deemed statutory right of occupancy, being a vested right recognised by the Act itself, could not be extinguished _per se_ under section 5(2) of the Act**** by the issue of a certificate of occupancy over the same plot. The right can only be revoked under section 28 of the Act. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **6.****Strict compliance with section 5(2) Land Use Act required** Section 5(2) of the Land Use Act presupposes strict prior compliance with section 28 of the Act where an earlier grant exists, a notice of the revocation must be given to the holder of a vested right before such right can be revoked and service of the notice must be in accordance with section 44 of the Act. Onu, JSC at 94. **7.****Traditional rights to land upheld by subsequent land legislation** It was certainly not the intention of the law makers to divest citizens of their traditional title to land. Rather, the Act was intended to strengthen ownership that derived existence through traditional history. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **8.****Statutory right of occupancy extinguished on proper notice** The appellant’s certificate of occupancy did not extinguish the respondent’s existing statutory right of occupancy. Such a right of occupancy could only have been extinguished upon proper notice to the occupant that his right of occupancy would be extinguished by the subsequent certificate of occupancy. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **9.****Proof of superior and better title** Where there are two claimants to a parcel of land, declaration of title is made in favour of the party that proves better title. In the evidence adduced and in the circumstances the appellant’s certificate of occupancy was invalid. The respondent had proved better title to the land. Per Onu, JSC at 94. **The following cases were referred to in this judgment:–** **Nigeria** _Abioye & 4 others v Yakubu & 5 others _(1991) 15 NWLR (Part 190) 130; (1991) 6 SCNJ 69 _Abioye v Yakubu_(2002) 1 NLLC 12 _Adisa v Emmanuel Oyinwola & 4 others _(2000) 10 NWLR (Part 674) 116; (2000) 6 SCNJ 290; (2000) FWLR (Part 8) 1349 _Ajani v Ladepo_(1986) 3 NWLR (Part 28) 276 _Ajilo v Savanah Bank_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd_(1989) 1 NWLR (Part 97) 305; (1989) 1 SCNJ 169 _Alli v Alesinloye_(2000) 4 SCNJ 264 _Anla v Ayanbola_(1977) 4 SC 63 _Aromire v Awoyemi_(1972) 1 All NLR (Part 1) 101 _Bello v Diocesan Synod of Lagos_(1973) 3 SC 103 _C.S.S. Bookshop Ltd v The Registered Trustees of Muslim Community in Rivers State & 3 others _(2006) 11 NWLR (Part 992) 530; (2006) 6 SCM 38; (2006) 4 SCNJ 310; (2006) 4 SC (Part II) 142 _Din v Attorney-General of the Federation_(1988) 4 NWLR (Part 87) 147; (1988) 9 SCNJ 14 _Dzungwe v Gbishe & another _(1985) 2 NWLR (Part 8) 528 _Ekpo v Ita_ 11 NLR 68 _Ereku v Mil. Gov. of Mid-Western State_(1974) 10 SC 59 _Fasoro & another v Beyioku & others _(1988) 2 NWLR (Part 263) 270 _Foreign Finance Corporation v Lagos State Development & Property Corporation & 2 others _(1991) 5 SCNJ 52 _Kari v Ganaram & 2 others _(1997) 2 NWLR (Part 488) 380; (1997) 2 SCNJ 138; (1997) 2 SCNJ 38 _Kyari v Alkali & 2 others _(2001) 5 SCNJ 421 _Lababedi v Lagos Metal Industries_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd_(1973) NSCC 1 _Lawson v Ajibulu_(1991) 6 NWLR (Part 195) 44 _Madam Salami & others v Oke _(1987) 4 NWLR (Part 63) 1; (1987) 9–10 SCNJ 27 _Mogaji v Cadbury_(1985) 2 NWLR 393 ratio 9 at 395 _Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd v Denap Ltd and another_(2001) 12 SCNJ 251 _Odofin v Ayoola_(1984) 11 SC 42 _Ogunleye v Oni_(1990) 2 NWLR (Part 135) 735; (1990) 4 SCNJ 65 _Olohunde v Adeyoju_(2000) 6 SCNJ 470 _Oseni v Dawodu_(1994) 4 SCNJ (Part 2) 197 _Osho & another v Foreign Finance Governor of Mid-Western State _(1974) 10 SC 57 _Osho v Philips_(1972) 4 SC 259 _Oyovbiare & 2 others v Omamurhamu _(1999) 7 SCNJ 60 _Provost, LACOED v Edun_(2004) 6 NWLR (Part 870) 476 _Saude v Abdullahi_(1989) 1 NWLR (Part 116) 387 _Savannah Bank_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd v Ajilo_(1989) 1 NWLR (Part 97) 305 _Savannah Bank_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd v Ajilo_(2001) FWLR (Part 75) 513 _Teniola & others v Olohunjun _(1999) 5 NWLR (Part 602) 280 _The Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church v Olowoleni_(1990) 6 NWLR (Part 158) 14 _Titiloye & others v Olupo _(1991) 7 NWLR (Part 205) 519; (1991) 9–10 SCNJ 122 **Foreign** _Belfast Corporation v O.D. Cars Ltd_[1960] AC 49 _Isiba & others v Hamson & others _[1967] 1 All ER 10 _Re Bowman South Shields_(_Thames Street_) _Clearance Order_[1932] AER 257 _Thomas v Holder_(1946) 12 WACA 78 _Walsh v Secretary of State for India_[1863] 10 HLC 367 **The following statutes were referred to in this judgment:** Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1963 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Republic of Nigeria, 1999: Ss 43; 44 Evidence Act Cap. 112, LFN 1990: Ss 73; 74(1)(_a_); 135(1) Land Use Act Cap. 202 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990: Ss 3; 5(1)(_a_), (2); 6; 28; 29; 30; 34(2), (3), (4), (5), (6); 35; 36(4) Land Use Act, 1978 **The following order was referred to in this judgment:** Benue State Land Use (Designation of Capital as Greater Makurdi): Order, 1984 **The following rules were referred to in this judgment:** Benue State High Court (Civil Procedure Rules), (Edict, 1988), Order 25, r 4 _G.I. Enebeli Esq_. for the appellant _G.N. Gwebe Esq._ for the respondent **Onu, JSC (Delivered the leading judgment):–** This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Jos, (per Obadina, Mangaji and Nzeako, JJCA) delivered on 14 May 2002 in Appeal No. CA/J/297/99 wherein they entered judgment for the respondent as appellant, allowed the appeal and the judgment of Ogbole, J of the High Court of Benue State in Suit No. MHC/219/94 dated 28 June 1999 set aside. Specifically, the declaration that the respondent (now appellant) was the title-holder of the land in dispute and the injunction granted restraining the appellant/respondent as well as the general damages awarded are each set aside, dismissed the counterclaim and cost of ~~N~~ 5,000 awarded in favour of the appellant/respondent. The appellant’s Statement of Claim (then as plaintiff at the trial court) is on pages 4–6 of the record. The respondent’s (then defendant) further amended Statement of Defence is on pages 77–83 of the record. The appellant’s reply to the Statement of Defence is on pages 56–59 of the record, The evidence of the appellant and that of his witnesses is on pages 115–130 of the record. The respondent, as appellant’s Brief of Argument is on pages 191–207 of the record. The appellant, as respondent’s Brief of Argument, is on pages 208–256 of the record. The judgment of the Court of Appeal leading to this appeal is on pages 260–292. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant on 16 July 2002 filed a Notice and Grounds of Appeal containing (4) grounds. At the trial Court, the Court admitted fifteen exhibits prominent among which Exhibit 2, is Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 5131 in respect of a piece of land in the Makurdi Urban Area which is the subject of this appeal. The appellant distilled four issues from his grounds of appeal which the respondent adopted for the determination in this appeal, to wit:– (a) Were the learned Justices right in the circumstance of this case in holding that there was no evidence led to show that the land in dispute is within Greater Makurdi Urban Area. Or put in another way, did the plaintiff (appellant) on the evidence produced by him successfully establish that the land in dispute is situated within the Makurdi Urban Area. (Based on Ground 1 of the Grounds of Appeal). (b) Whether the power conferred on the Governor under section 5(2) of the Land Use Act, 1978 presupposes prior strict compliance with section 28 of the Act where there exist title-holders to the land affected. (Based on Ground 2 of the Grounds of Appeal). (c) Whether or not the Statutory right of occupancy issued to the appellant was validly granted and could therefore extinguish the respondent’s title as a deemed title-holder considering section 5, subsection 2 and 34, subsections 5 and 6 of the Land Use Act, 1978. (Based on Ground 3 of the Grounds of Appeal). (d) Whether or not the respondent, now appellant proved his title to the piece of land in dispute by the production of a document of title (Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 5131) referred to as Exhibit 2 from the record and/or, whether the costs of ~~N~~ 5,000 awarded was not excessive. (Based on Ground 4 of the Grounds of Appeal). The facts of the case briefly put are as follows:– The appellant, as plaintiff in the High Court of Benue State before Ogbole, J, claimed that the respondent as the defendant trespassed into his piece of land. In consequence, he sought a declaration (declaratory) judgment that respondent as the defendant trespassed into his piece of land along David Mark Bye Pass, Makurdi. He in addition claimed aggravated damages and perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, his servants or agents from entering upon the said property or doing any other acts thereon incompatible and inconsistent with the respondent’s title and ownership of the said property. The defendant for his part, filed a counterclaim in his amended statement of defence with one relief that he is a deemed holder of a Certificate of Occupancy in respect of the land in dispute. Pleadings were exchanged and witnesses were called by the two parties at the hearing in the High Court. In his judgment, the learned trial Judge dismissed the respondent’s counterclaim and awarded title to the appellant with ~~N~~ 15,000 damages and perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, his servants or agents from entering upon the said property. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Jos, which found as a fact that as far as the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 5131 was concerned, it was not made in error but that it was genuinely made. Yet it went on to hold that there was no evidence before the trial court proving the location of the land in issue in order to arrive at a decision that falls within the area designated as urban under the 1984 Order and therefore failed to prove his case. In the main the judgment of Ogbole J in suit no. MHC/219/94 dated 28/6/99 was set aside on 14 May 2002 and an injunction restraining the respondent/appellant from entering the piece of land with ~~N~~ 5,000 costs against the respondent/appellant adding that the Certificate of Occupance No. BNA 5131 issued to the appellant was invalid. The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal has now appealed to this Court upon four (4) grounds as in the Notice of Appeal dated 15 July 2002 and filed on 16 July 2002 as hereinbefore stated. I will now proceed to consider below the issues serially as the appellant) has done. **Issue 1** The Benue State Land Use (Designation of Capital as Greater Makurdi) Order, 1984 declared Makurdi an urban area and all areas specified in the Schedule to the Order within 16 kilometres radius. Section 5(1)(_a_) of the Land Use Act empowers the Governor of a State to grant statutory right of occupancy (Certificate of Occupancy) to any person whether or not in an urban area. The possession of title document over the disputed plot by the appellant was not conclusive that the plot in issue was within the 16 kilometre radius constituting greater Makurdi nor within the Makurdi urban area as not all lands within the area called Makurdi are urban lands. There was therefore, the need for the appellant to prove that the Plot in issue was within the Makurdi Urban Area. By all necessary implications therefore, they, who wanted the court to hold that the disputed plot of land was within the Makurdi Urban Area, were required by law to plead the fact and prove the same at the hearing of their case. (See Order 25 Rule 4 of the Benue State High Court (Civil Procedure Rules), (Edict, 1988). See also section 135(1) of the Evidence Act Cap. 112, LFN 1990 (“Evidence Act”). Nowhere in his statement of claim (see pages 4, 5 and 6 of the record) did he plead the fact to enable him give evidence on it at the trial. Rather, the appellant pleaded and tendered Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 5131 (Exhibit 2) to prove only the fact that he is the rightful owner of the disputed plot, but not its _situ._(See paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaintiff/appellant’s Statement of Claim on page 117 lines 13 and 14 of the record to the effect that “I told him that that area is within urban area traditional title notwithstanding” did not only go to nothing, it was equally clearly bereft of the facts and details which would have led the trial court to believe and thereby concluded that the disputed plot was within Makurdi Urban Area. From the foregoing, I hold the view that there was no evidence before the court below proving the location of the land in issue which would have enabled the court to arrive at the decision that falls within the area designated as urban under the 1984 Order. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were therefore right when having taken judicial notice of Gazette No. 21 Vol. 10 of 23 May 1985 which was published in the 1984 Order (See page 184 line 23 of the record proceeded to hold that they did not find as such. This court was accordingly urged to affirm the Court of Appeal’s decision. and not to disturb it even if this Court finds that that court (court below) is in error in holding that there was no evidence before the trial court proving the location of the land in issue in order to arrive at a decision as the court did namely, that the land falls within the area designated as urban under the 1984 Order. This Court was urged to so hold because the judgment of the Court below was neither founded on this finding and conclusion nor on the fact that the Governor of Benue State did not first revoke the respondent’s deemed statutory right of occupancy over the plot in issue before issuing Exhibit 2. (Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 5131) over the same plot to the appellant. Thus, it was further argued, that even if the Justices of the court below had found proved that the disputed plot was situated in an urban area, this finding would have had no effect whatsoever on the court’s subsequent findings on Issue No. 1 and the decision reached. This Court has held in several cases that it is not every error of the Lower Court that will result in an appeal being allowed but only such errors that occasion grave miscarriage of justice. (See _Oseni v Dawodu_(1994) 4 SCNJ (Part 2) 197 at 209; _Anla v Ayanbola_(1977) 4 SC 63 and _Alli v Alesinloye_(2000) 4 SCNJ 264 at 297). I am of the view that the error of the Court below (if any) not being one that has occasioned a miscarriage of justice should not constitute the ground for setting aside the judgment of the court below, I accordingly decline to set aside the decision of the court. **Issue 2** This issue raises the question whether in the exercise of his power under section 5(2) of the Land Use Act, the Governor must first comply with section 28 of the Act where there exist two title holders to the same land. The two types of Rights of Occupancy recognisable in law are (1) Statutory Right of Occupancy granted by the Governor under section 5(1)(_a_) of the Act; (2) Statutory Right of Occupancy deemed to be granted by the Governor pursuant to section 34(2) of the Act. It is trite that a deemed grant comes into existence automatically by the operation of law and the grantee acquires a vested right just as an actual grantee of a right of occupancy. (See _Savannah Bank_(_Nigeria_) _Ltd v Ajilo_(2001) FWLR (Part 75) 513; _Sunmonu Olohunde & another v Prof. S.K. Adeyoju _(2000) 6 SCNJ 470 at 505 per Uwaifo, JSC). It is not in doubt that under section 5(1) of the Land Use Act, it shall be lawful for the Governor to grant statutory right of occupancy to any person in respect of land, whether or not in an urban area. Under section 5(2) of the Act, when such grant is made, all existing rights to the use occupation of the land so granted shall be extinguished. Be it noted that the rights that are automatically extinguished following the exercise of the powers of the Governor under section 5(2) of the Act are “existing rights to the use and occupation of the land” such as the rights of licenses, mortgages etc. but not vested rights such as statutory right of occupancy actually or deemed granted which are recognised by the Act itself. (See _Olohunde v Adeyoju_(_supra_)). Where therefore there exist a prior grant, section 5(2) of the Act cannot be applied to defeat it, as the section cannot in that case be swallowed wholesale. (See _Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd v Denap Ltd and another_(2001) 12 SCNJ 251 at 275 per Kalgo, JSC). The section (i.e. section 5(2) of the Act) will only be able to defeat the existing vested right if such right is revoked under section 28 of the Act for any of the reasons stated thereunder. Otherwise, there will be in existence at the same time two valid rights of occupancy granted to different persons in respect of the same parcel of land, as was the case in the matter at hand. In such a case, it was contended, the latter right of occupancy is liable to be invalidated as the court below rightly did in this case. In the case in hand, the appellant himself admitted before the Court below that the respondent’s (the defendant at the trial court) father settled on the disputed land. At page 255 paragraph 1 of the record he stated thus:– “I am not in doubt that the defendant’s (respondent in this appeal) father first settled on the alleged land in 1950, which at that time was a virgin land, After his death, the defendant took over the control and management of this vast land, There is no evidence to the contrary . . .” In the face of the admission and the evidence on the record indicating that the respondent had developed the land before the coming into effect of the Land Use Act (see pages 146–147 of the record), by the operation of section 34 of the Act this respondent became or was deemed to hold a statutory right of occupancy over the plot of land? The court below therefore properly held. A deemed statutory right of occupancy, being a vested right recognised by the Act itself, cannot be extinguished under section 5(2) of the Land Use Act by**** the issue of a statutory right of occupancy over the same plot. The right can only be revoked under section 28 of the Act. The only option open to the Governor of Benue State was to have first revoked the deemed right of occupancy of the respondent before granting Exhibit 2 to the appellant over the same plot of land. (See _Olohunde v Adeyoju_(_supra_) and _Nigerian Engineering Works v Denap_(_supra_).) Having failed to do so, the court below also properly invalidated Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 5131 issued without first revoking the pre-existing right of occupancy of the respondent. I so hold. In the face of the above, it is clear that the interpretation of the learned Justices of the Court below that section 5(2) of the Land Use Act presupposes strict prior compliance with section 28 of the Act where there exists an earlier grant is the correct interpretation. What their Lordships did at the court below was only to re-echo or apply the case cited above. It is certainly not the intention of the law makers, in my view, that the Land Use Act be used to divest citizens of their traditional titles to land. Rather, the Act is meant to strengthen ownership that derives existence through traditional history, which is what the court below sought to enforce through its judgment. I therefore endorse the submission that this Court should not disturb the judgment of the court below. Not even for the reason that the respondent has excess land in Makurdi or that the court below did not make a finding on the issue. As no appeal has been lodged on this issue, no issue has therefore been consequently formulated for the determination of this Court. _A fortiori_ , I affirm the judgment of the court below on this point. **Issue 3** Issue No. 3 raises two questions for determination, to wit:– (_a_)Whether or not the right of occupancy evidenced by Certificate of Occupancy BNA 5131 granted to the appellant was validly granted. (_b_)Whether the Right of Occupancy could extinguish the title of the respondent as a deemed holder. **Question (_a_):** Section 34 of the Land Use Act, as it were, recognises the title of persons who were on the land before 1978 when the Act came into being. If the Land was developed by such persons, they are deemed holders of statutory rights of occupancies issued by the Governor by virtue of section 34(2) and (3) of the Act. The right comes into existence automatically by the operation of law. In the case in hand, it is in evidence and the court below so found that the land in issue was held by the respondent and was indeed developed by him before the coming into existence of the Land Use Act in 1978. It is also in evidence that as far back as 1983 the land was the subject of the application for a Certificate of Occupancy on file No. BN 10617 at the instance of the respondent. (See page 1 of Exhibit 1). By the operation of section 34 of the Act the respondent who had, the land vested in him was deemed to have continued to hold the same as if he was the holder of a statutory right of occupancy issued by the Governor under section 5 of the Act. A deemed right of occupancy is also a vested right recognised by the Act itself. Consequently, it must first have to be properly revoked or nullified before another statutory right of occupancy can be issued in its place. (See _Olohunde v Adeyoju_(_supra_) per Uwaifo, JSC at 505). The right will be properly revoked if and only if the revocation is done under section 28 of the Land Use Act, for any of the reasons stated therein. For whatever reason the right is being revoked, the revocation shall be signified by notice duly issued and shall become valid when received by the person with such vested right. (See sections 28(6) and (7) of the Land Use Act.) In the case in hand, in the exercise of his powers under section 5(1) of the Land Use Act (_supra_), in October 1993, the Governor of Benue State granted Exhibit 2 (Certificate of Occupancy No. 5131) to the appellant over the land in issue over which the respondent already had title and is deemed to be granted a statutory right of occupancy by the same Governor. There is no evidence that the government ever acquired this land. There is equally no evidence that the Governor re