Background
The case of Savannah Bank (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Ajilo revolves around the interpretation of the Land Use Act of 1978. The first plaintiff, Ammel O. Ajilo, previously held the land in question under a fee simple title before the act came into effect. Following this act, which significantly altered land ownership across Nigeria, the title was deemed converted into a statutory right of occupancy, requiring the consent of the Military Governor for any alienation (such as a mortgage). The appellant bank sought to execute a mortgage on this property after the consent had not been obtained.
Issues
The principal issues addressed in this appeal are:
- Whether a holder of a right of occupancy deemed under section 34 of the Land Use Act requires consent from the Military Governor for mortgage transactions.
- Impact of statutory provisions on existing vested rights following the enactment of the Land Use Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court found in favor of the respondents, holding that the provisions of section 22 of the Land Use Act apply universally to all holders of statutory rights of occupancy, including those deemed to hold such rights under section 34. Thus, the failure to obtain the Military Governor's consent before executing the mortgage rendered it null and void.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court affirmed that:
- The Land Use Act comprehensively replaced prior systems of land tenure across Nigeria, vesting land in the Military Governor for administrative purposes.
- All holders of the statutory right of occupancy, regardless of how that right was acquired (whether by direct grant or deemed), are subject to the required consent provisions of section 22 of the Act.
- Any transaction that does not conform to this requirement—including mortgages without consent—is rendered void under the Act.
Conclusion
The judgment effectively reinforced the stipulations of the Land Use Act regarding land ownership and the necessary governmental oversight on transactions involving land, thus highlighting the stringent control exercised by the Military Governor. The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the injunction preventing the bank from proceeding with the foreclosure on the property in question.
Significance
This landmark judgment is significant as it clarifies the overarching authority of the Military Governor in matters of land and reinforces the legal framework established by the Land Use Act, which aims to centralize control over land resources for the benefit of all Nigerians. It underlines the need for compliance with statutory requirements in property transactions, ensuring that property rights reflect the current law rather than outdated practices.