RE: State and Private Ownership of Land

Hi Louis,
 
The point I am making is that ownership can mean different things in different situations. There are people who have a lease on a land e.g. ownere of a leasehold flat and are considered the owners. Even their landlords who own the freehold can still be considered owners (of the freehold) and they might be entitled to a ground rent or some peppercorn rent.
 
If you talk of owner, you must state of what. Ownership of land means nothing. You can only own an interst in the land. The highest interest being the freehold interest (fee simple) which is when you have no superior landlord. You own a leasehold interest where you have a superior landlord and you might pay him rents e.g. normal rents, a ground rent or some form of peppercorn rent. The lease generally provides that the land will revert to the freeholder at the expiration of the term of the lease.i.e. the right to the reversion.
 
If statute vest ownership of all lands in a state to the governor, that is the position. In practice, he might not exercise his powers to start evicting people from lands or expropriating lands. The Queen in the UK has so much powers but in practice she might never exercise some because it might be unfair to do or it is political not correct despite her legal powers to do so.
 
Again, you do not own land per se. You own an interest in land, the highest being fee simple which is almost like absolute ownership of what is above, on and below the land (subject to various other rights that might exist like easements over the land, right of passage, profit a prendre on the land e.g. right for someone to come and fetch water etc etc.).
 
If Bakweri people as freeholders gave a lease to CDC, at the end of the lease, the land should revert to Bakweri people just like the Hong Kong case. I am not sure if government has acquired the CDC lands using one of its powers or not. I do not have facts about CDC lands hence cannot comment specifically. Unfortunately, I must limit myself to general principles.
 
For us to concentrate on ownership without stating of what would be to confuse the issue. There can be various owners of different interest on the same land at the same time e.g. different legal owner, different beneficial owner, different freehold owner, different leasehold owner etc etc. They are all owners but of different interest in the same land at the same time. There is also the aspect of tenants in common, joint tenants and the issue of the rule of survivorship.
 
In summary, a land does not have only one owner at a point in time. There can be many owners as stated above.
 
Regards
 
 

 

---

Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:43:16 +0100
From: louis_egbe@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: State and Private Ownership of Land
To: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com
CC: fakonation@yahoogroups.com; fako_uk@yahoogroups.com; fakonet@yahoogroups.com; lilolaphako@yahoogroups.com

Doc, Thanks for your contribution. However, I think we are discussing specific lands here and not generalisations. Power vested to control does not in any way mean any degree of ownership. In addition, interest in a piece of land does not always translate into or mean ownership. This does not mean the state cannot own their own registered lands following the same process that private or communal owners undergo. Land law is just that in this instance. The Governor of any Nigerian state has no right to expropriate any private or ancestral lands using those powers "vested" on him save in times of war and other emergencies and not in peace times. He acts as a custodian of the land and not as an owner. He is not a Landlord. If they wish to be a landlord, that particular state must acquire their own estate such as the Council/Government of England owns council estates complete with titles. No government has the right to expropriate any private or communal or ancestral lands irrespective of the length of lease. China "leased" Hong Kong for 99 years to the UK.  If the UK refused to hand it back after the lease expired, it would have led to a war because the actual owners are the Chinese and not the UK. Now coming to the CDC point, this extract may help clarify:   The Enactment of the Governor of Nigeria, 1946: "Whereas there are now vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for Nigeria certain lands situate in the Cameroons under British Mandate and more particularly described in the Schedule to this Ordinance: And whereas it is deemed expedient in the interest of the economic advancement of the inhabitants of the said territory that the Governor should be enabled to grant leases of the said lands to the Cameroons Development Corporation established by Ordinance for the purpose of controlling and developing these lands: 1.     The Ordinance may be cited as Ex-Enemy Lands (Cameroons) Ordinance, 1946, and shall come into operation on a date appointed by the Governor by notice in the Gazette. ....... 4.  It is hereby declared that, upon the vesting of the said lands in the Governor by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of this Ordinance, all such lands shall be deemed to be NATIVE LANDS within the meaning of LAND AND NATIVE RIGHTS ORDINANCE , and subject to provisions of section 5 of this ordinance, all such lands shall be under the control and subject to the disposition of the Governor, and shall be held and administered in accordance with provisions of LAND AND NATIVE RIGHTS ORDINANCE which shall, notwithstanding anything in written law to the contrary, be deemed to apply to such lands."   The CDC owns no piece of land in Victoria, Tiko, Buea ... Cameroon government is a Custodian/Trustee of the CDC. It does not own the land. The original CDC lease that came into effect in 1947 for a total of 60 years expired in 2007. The lands belong to the natives and not to the government or CDC. This was again confirmed in the 1974 Cameroon Land Ordinance and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Banjul ruling in 2004. Any person buying  lands "returned" by the CDC in these areas will lose their money; and any person who has bought the said lands  have lost their money. Those lands are native-protected under national and international law. I will not advise any person to buy any of such lands because it is an illegal sale. 1.      Annual Volume of the Laws of Nigeria, "Ex-Enemy Lands (Cameroons)", No. 38, 1946. Mbua   --- On Sat, 29/9/12, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com> Subject: State Ownership of Land To: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com, ambasbay@googlegroups.com, cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 29 September, 2012, 21:21   Dear All,   the concept of ownership of land is being discussed as some absolute concept but I view ownership in terms of rights. The freeholder (fee simple) can own, the leaseholder can own various interest in land. It is a matter of what interest is owned at a particular time. Someone can own in future i.e. a right to a reversion.   When I value property, if the lease is so long, it is not different from a freehold. There are some leases that are 999 years long. This by all means is almost the same in valuation terms as a freehold.   The concept that all land cannot belong to the state is not true. It can in some instances. In Nigeria, the Land Use Act vest all land in a state to the state Governor and all people can get is a Certificate of Occupancy from him. You even need his permission to undertake various transactions with your land.   Even in the UK, if a freeholder is digging his garden and finds a pile of gold, such treasure trove might belong to the Queen and not him. Who owns the land is a matter of semantics. The issue should be who owns what interest on the land at what time.   The summary is that by Statute, all land can be vested on the state whether in trust or not, the issue is that the state acquires some rights or interest on the land and can exercise some control over it. If the state acquires such rights, in some sense, the state can be said to own also depended on the rights acquired. One person can own the legal interest whilst at the same time another owns the beneficial interest. These interest are not coterminous. Someone can own both at the same time.   Below is an article that gives the Nigerian position. The position in Cameroon appears to be different.          . Article by Dr. Adeoye Adefulu & Nnamdi Esionye Background The promulgation of the Land Use Decree (later the Land Use Act1 (the "Act")) in 1978, brought about the vesting of exclusive powers over land comprised in the territory of any given State in the Governor of the State2. The effect was that radical ownership of land was vested in the Governor and private persons were only entitled to a leasehold interest through a right of occupancy. The Act further requires that the consent of the Governor, has to be obtained prior to any method of alienation of property by the holder of a right of occupancy3. The effect of this was that any assignment of interests or mortgages required the consent of the Governor to be legally enforceable. The Land Use (Amendment) Bill (the "Amendment"), is currently being deliberated upon by the National Assembly. The Bill seeks to review the exclusive powers of the Governor in relation to the alienation/parting of possession with property. This paper reviews the provisions of the Bill and its potential effect on land ownership in Nigeria. Removal of Requirement for Governor's Consent Sections 21-22 of the Act prohibits the alienation of either a customary right of occupancy or a statutory right of occupancy via an assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease, or otherwise without the consent of the Governor. The above stated provisions have resulted in a plethora of issues relating to transfer of property transactions. Firstly, the process of obtaining the Governor's consent is costly, in Lagos State, for example, it costs up to 15% of the deemed value of the property. Further, even though there have been improvements to the process it still takes a long time to obtain the consent, which significantly delays the completion of commercial transactions. Additionally, the requirement to seek the Governor's consent for mortgage transactions has also proved to be an impediment in the introduction of financial tools such as mortgage backed securitisation, which requires an element of certainty in terms of the rights to the underlying securities in the mortgages to be securitised. As a result of the above stated issues, the Amendment has been proposed to alleviate the burdens currently faced by investors in the real estate market and to provide property investment incentives. The primary amendments to the Act can be found in sections 5 & 6 of the Bill. Section 5 of the Bill provides for the amendment of Section 21 of the Act by deleting all words after "assignment" and the inclusion of a sub section stating "the right of a holder of a customary right of occupancy to alienate such right by mortgage is hereby recognized". The effect is that holders of a Customary Right of Occupancy will now be empowered to alienate their rights by way of a mortgage, transfer of possession, or sub-lease without requiring the approval/consent of the Governor. However, it should be noted that any alienation by way of an assignment will still require the consent of the Governor prior to the assignment. Similarly, section 6 of the Bill provides for the Amendment of Section 22 (1) and (2) of the Act by deleting the words "mortgage, transfer of possession, sub lease, or otherwise" immediately after the word "assignment"; the deletion of the proviso after sub section (1); and the creation of a new sub section (3) stating "the consent of the Governor shall not be required for the creation of a mortgage or sub lease under this section. Therefore, like the holder of a customary right of occupancy, a statutory holder may alienate his rights by mortgage, transfer of possession, or sub-lease without requiring the consent of the Governor. Consequentially, the proposed amendments to the Act also remove the powers of the Governor to impose a penalty for the failure of a holder of a statutory right of occupancy to obtain its consent prior to the alienation of a property by way of mortgage, transfer of possession, sub-lease, or by bequest4 and also the powers of the Governor to revoke a right of occupancy where the holder of said right alienates the property by way of assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sub-lease, or otherwise contrary to the provisions of the Act or without the requisite Governor's consent or approval5. The Requirement of Consent of Holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy to a Sub-Underlease Section 7 of the Bill introduces new provisions to replace the current section 23 of the Act as follows: A sub-lessee of a statutory right of occupancy may, with the approval of the holder of the statutory right of occupancy, demise by way of sub-underlease to another person, the land comprised in the sublease held by him or any other portion of the land. Whilst we agree that it is now necessary to remove the requirement of Governors consent from the Act, in view of the other amendments proposed, the substitution of Governor's consent with the consent of the holder of the statutory right of occupancy may cause other problems. Firstly, it may lead to the imposition of "signing or consent fees" by holders of the statutory rights of occupancy. The current draft of the Bill does not appear to anticipate the emergence of these fees and as such does not regulate it. This could therefore lead to significant costs in the completion of property transactions. Additionally, it may also lead to significant delays. It is our strong view that that section 23 as a whole should be deleted. Parties to individual transactions may choose the option of retaining such consent as a contractual requirement and not a statutory requirement. Conclusion The proposed Bill seeks to restrict the requirement of the Governor's consent to solely alienation via an assignment or sale. In light of the above, should the Act be amended as is proposed, the holder of a right of occupancy will have a statutory avenue for avoiding the requirement of Governor's consent when of alienating his right to a third party. It should be noted that a holder of a right of occupancy, seeking to transfer title her/his right may do so by way of an assignment or sublease. The major difference between an assignment and a sublease is the reversionary interest reserved by the transferor, when transferring via a sublease. Thus, a person transferring her/his title via a sublease will be achieving the same goal as when transferred via an assignment. Also, a holder of a right of occupancy seeking to enter into a legal mortgage, or seeking to bequest her/his property to a third party will no longer require obtaining the Governor's consent prior to s/he entering into such a transaction. The proposed amendment is a welcome development, due to the fact that it will encourage alienation transactions as well as reduce the difficulties currently being faced by persons seeking to transfer title, but are hindered from effectively and timeously achieving their aim, as a result of the cumbersome and expensive process of obtaining the Governor's consent. Footnotes 1.Laws of the Federation of Nigeria Chapter. CAP. L5 2.S.2 Land Use Act 3.S. 21 and 22 Land Use Act 4.S. 5(1f) Land Use Act 5.S. 28 Land Use Act The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author __,_._,___