DELIMITING THE GOVERNOR’S CONSENT REQUIREMENT IN LAND TRANSACTIONS IN NIGERIA IN THE LIGHT OF CURRENT JUDICIAL INTERVENTIONS OVER SAVANNAH BANK V AJILO (PART 2)

Abstract

While interpreting the provisions of Nigeria’s Land Use Act on the requirement of Governor’s consent in land transactions in Nigeria, in the case of Savannah Bank v Ajilo, the Nigerian Supreme Court had declared that failure to obtain the Governor’s consent where necessary in a land transaction in Nigeria, renders the affected transaction and the instrument embodying the transaction void and of no effect. Over the years, some controversies have arisen as to what exactly is the best way to approach the decision in Savannah Bank v Ajilo in order to ameliorate observed harshness in its strict application to conveyancing transactions where the transferor who has defaulted in obtaining consent, turns around to seek to have the transaction nullified on the same ground. In this two-part study, the author examines these controversies and offers recommendations on what the author considers to be the best approach, based on prevailing court decisions, to the operation and application of the decision in Savannah Bank v Ajilo, without distorting the indispensability of Governor’s consent as a precondition for alienation of land in Nigeria. Part 1 of the study introduces the main gist in, and the implication and application of, the judgment in the case of Savannah Bank v Ajilo, highlights the gains and pains experienced in the application of the judgment, while introducing a discussion as to whether the decision in Savannah Bank v Ajilo still reigns -- a discussion which is now continued in this segment (Part 2), which proceeds to focus on delimiting extent of continued relevance of the judgment in Savannah Bank v. Ajilo amidst plethora of judicial interventions on issues revolving around indispensability of Governor’s consent, after which useful recommendations and suggestions are offered on the right approach to interpretation and application of the judgment in relation the Governor’s consent requirement. As already hinted in Part 1, this study, in order to properly project the objective of the study, plays host to a symbiotic interplay of both the doctrinal and the socio-legal research methodologies.