Even though, the right of
occupancy has been introduced by the land Use Act, it is not specifically
defined by the Act. The act in S. 51(1)46
only tries to define customary right of occupancy and statutory right of
occupancy. According to this section, customary right of occupancy means the
right of a person or community lawfully using or occupying land in accordance
with customary law and includes a customary right of occupancy granted by local
government under this Act.
While the same
section defined statutory right of occupancy as a right of occupancy
granted by the Governor under this Act. But right of occupancy perse is not
defined by the Act.
We are therefore, compelled to
look at previous similar enactment which defined the term right of occupancy.
The most relevant of such enactment in the present context is the land tenure
law of the northern Nigeria 1962 47.
This is so because the Land Use Act borrowed the right of occupancy system from
the land Tenure Law of Northern Nigeria. The said law had defined right of
occupancy as follows: “The title to the use and occupation of land and includes
a customary right of occupancy and statutory right of occupancy”
Giving the similarity between the
Land Tenure Law of Northern Nigeria and Land Use Act, the definition applies
Mutatis Mutandis to the land use act. The obvious implication is that right of
occupancy has become the highest form of estate of interest capable of
enjoyment hence the inception of the land use act.
The position of the law is what
the right of occupancy is a new form of right, it is sui – generis, a hybrid of
personal, proprietary and usupructory rights in land. This position is in all
four similar to the view expressed by the privy council in Preinchand Nathy and Co. Ltd v Land Office 48 that the concept of the
right of occupancy is sui – generis and that the intension of the law in
introducing the right of occupancy system was to establish an entirely new
interest in land.
Also, Prof. Omaotala 49 asserts that “there is
nothing wrong in the right of occupancy being a new form of right, and submits
that a right of occupancy is a hybrid form of right something between personal
and proprietary right.
From the foregoing, there are too
broad categories of right of occupancy, which are dependent on the locus situs
of the land in question. If the land is situate in a non – urban area, it is
capable of customary right of occupancy. On the other hand, if it is situate in
an urban area, it can only be the subject of a statutory right of
occupancy.