UNTIL otherwise stated by a superior court, the Dutch leading oil firm in Nigeria, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) has forfeited its Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) ceding Bonny Terminal land in Port-Harcourt, Rivers State to it, courtesy of a Court of Appeal Port-Harcourt Judicial Division.The state government had 11 years ago gave the landed property to the Dutch firm. The court also held that the Governor of a state in his official capacity and under the Land Use Act, particularly Section 28 could not had revoked a right of occupancy vested in a person and vest same on another.Justice Ejembi Eko had concluded thus while delivering judgment in appeal no CA/PH/581M/2008, initiated by SPDC to challenge the respondents, including Amanyanabo of Grand Bonny, Bonny Council of chiefs, elders and members of Buoye Omuso Brown Major House of Finima, Jumbo Major House of Bonny, bid to invalidate the C of O it obtained from the Rivers State Government in March 1999.Resolved to upturn the verdict of a Port-Harcourt High Court, the oil company sought the Court of Appeals intervention.The trial court in its judgment had concluded that the Certificate of Occupancy Shell obtained for the Bonny Terminal land was un-constitutional on the ground that the company did not seek the consent of the respondentsthe land owing family who are its landlord before applying for the certificate.Piqued by the state governments issuance of the document to the oil firm, the respondents through their counsel, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), in an originating summons before a Port-Harcourt High Court, had asked for a declaration that at all material times, are customary owners and consenters being landlord of Shell in respect to all the parcel of land lying and situated between towns of Bonny and Finima contained in a deed of tenancy made on 22 July, 1958 and registered as No.51 at page 51 volume 5 of the Lands Registry in the office at Enugu now kept in Port-Harcourt.They also sought a declaration from the court that upon the coming into effect of the Land Use Act in 1978, they were deemed to be grantees of or holders of the right of occupancy over the land covered by the said deed of tenancy.In seeking an order to set aside the certificate of occupancy, the families insisted that Shell in a clandestine manner obtained the certificate over their land and constituted a challenge of denial of the title of their claim as landlords of Shell, which has forfeited its right as tenant in respect of the land.Nwosu had during the trial said that prior to obtaining the certificate of occupancy, the respondents had directed him to renegotiate the loss of user and economic rents payable to them by Shell under the 1958 lease.This was acknowledged by Shell, which had assured the Bonny monarch, the Amanyanabo of Grand Bonny, in December 1998 that it would respond to the request for a renegotiation of the lease in a months time.But surreptitiously, the families said the company rather opted to apply for the certificate of occupancy, which was eventually issued to it on March 15, 1999 by the military governor of Rivers State.The Bonny and Finima families prayer that the court declare that Shells decision to have secretly obtain a certificate of occupancy from the state government without the consent of the original owner of the land was unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect was eventually granted.And dissatisfied with the judgment, Shell filed a notice of appeal with four grounds of appeal. The oil firm later filed additional nine grounds of appeal through its counsel, Olu Daramola (SAN).Delivering judgement on the matter last Thursday, Justice Eko observed that there was no evidence that the Government of Rivers State, before issuing the 1999 certificate of occupancy revoked the 1958 lease and the title of the respondents to the said land or gave them the opportunity to be heard.The Judge said it was an abuse of the Governors statutory power to revoke the grant of right of occupancy vested in one private person and grant it to another. The jurist therefore declared that the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to Shell, being a tenant to the respondents was null, void, unconstitutional and of no effect.I do not think that is normal for a Nigerian landlord to permit a tenant to obtain a statutory right of occupancy over his property and which certificate of occupancy audaciously declares the landlords title completely extinguished and replaced by the certificate of occupancy in favour of the tenant, said Eko.Justice Eko further noted, I also do not think that in the common course of landlord-tenant relationship that the landlord, who is demanding renegotiation of economic rents, would permit the tenant to apply for and obtain a certificate of occupancy that extinguishes the landlords title; and consequently the rent.The court declared that failure by Shell to join the parties interested in the appeal, like the Government of Rivers State that issued the controversial certificate of occupancy, renders the appeal liable to be struck out on the basis that it is incompetent.Two other Justices of the court, M. Dattijo Muhammad and T.O. Awotoye, unanimously supported the lead judgment, which voided the certificate of occupancy.
Click here to read full news..
