POISED to resolve the lingering battle over whether or not the Lagos State Government has the legal right to demand land use charge from Federal Government’s tenants in Lagos State, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has waded into the tussle, setting out 14th March 2013 to decide on a motion for judgment.

The new date was sequel to an application brought by the Federal Government (FG) against the issuance of consent to land transactions by the Lagos State government.

For several months, there has been lingering disagreement over which tier of government should issue consent for transaction on federal lands in Lagos state. While the federal government issues consent, Lagos State government insists on issuing its own consent in a practice called ‘regularization.’

There are federal lands in Ikoyi, Festac Town and other parts of Lagos State. Purchasers of such lands are subjected to double payment for consent.

As a result, the Federal Government gave a fiat to Olisa Agbakoba and Associates to challenge the practice in the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction.

FG is asking the apex court to declare that Lagos State has no power under the Land Use Act to issue consent in respect of lands owned by FG in Lagos State. The practice, which involves billions of naira in land revenue, has resulted in a faceoff between the two tiers of government in Lagos State. The conundrum got to a point that the former Attorney General of Lagos State Olasupo Shasore (SAN) in a letter dated July 19, 2010 advised Agbakoba to seek judicial pronouncement on the issue.

While Lagos State has filed a Memorandum of Appearance at the apex court, it has however failed to file a defence. This prompted the FG to file a motion for judgment. At the last sitting when the matter came up, counsel to the government, Mr. Chijioke Emeka, asked the Supreme Court to enter judgment for the FG in default of the defence of Lagos State.

But the apex court, which expressed displeasure with the identity of the person who received the motion for judgment on behalf of the Attorney General of Lagos State, who simply wrote ‘Temilade’, ordered the motion to be served again on Lagos State before the new hearing date to enable the court proceed.

According to its statement of claim, the plaintiff wants the court to declare that by virtue of sections 49 and 51(2) of the Land Use Act, cap L5, laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1999, lands vested in the FG within the territory of Lagos State are exempted from the power of the Governor of Lagos State to grant consent to transactions on lands comprising the territory of that state under section 22 of the Land Use Act.

The FG also wants the Supreme Court to declare that the powers vested in the governor of Lagos State under the Land Use Act to manage and control lands comprising in the territory of Lagos State by way of grant of right of occupancy, revocation of same grant of consent under section 22 of the Land Use Act, etc does not extend to lands vested in the FG of Nigeria within Lagos State territory.

The plaintiff in its statement of claim states: “Section 49 of the Land Use Act provides that nothing in the Land Use Act, shall affect any title to land, whether developed or undeveloped, held by the federal government or any agency of the federal government and accordingly, any such land shall continue to vest in the Federal government or the agency concerned”, adding that section 51 of the Land Use Act provides that the powers of a governor under the Act shall in respect of land comprised in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja or any land held or vested in the FG in any state, be exerciseable by the President or any minister designated by him in that behalf and references in the Act to governor shall be construed accordingly.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant has been interfering with the powers of the plaintiff to grant consent in respect of land held by the plaintiff in Lagos State by requiring that transactions on land held by the plaintiff, be submitted to the governor of Lagos State for consent.

“The plaintiff states that this practice is referred to as ‘regularisation’, by which the defendant requires persons who acquire interest in land vested in the FG within the territory of Lagos State, to further apply to the Governor of Lagos State, for a second consent and pay fees, thereby amounting to double charges and double consents”, the plaintiff declared, adding that those who acquire interest in land vested in the FG and refuse or fail or neglect to apply for the consent of the governor of Lagos State, are regarded to not have acquired any interest in land in spite of a valid consent duly granted and executed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff therefore prayed the Court to declare that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or his designated minister has power to grant consent to transactions envisaged by Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act in respect of lands vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria within State to the exclusion of the Governor of Lagos State.

The plaintiff in addition seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, whether by the governor of Lagos State or his Commissioners, directors or other staff, servants, agents, privies and assigns, forthwith from demanding or granting consent to any alienation of right of occupancy or part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise in respect of lands vested in the Federal government comprised in Lagos State.