NG Bar Prop Law common mistakes
NG Bar Prop Law · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Land Use Act 1978 as a statute that created State ownership of land, and answering that all land in a State is 'government land' held by the Governor in fee simple, rather than describing the Governor's holding as a statutory trust/control over land vested in the people of the State.
Candidates memorise s.1 as a slogan ('all land is vested in the Governor') and never read the trust language, so they misdescribe the nature of the interest and then compound the error when discussing certificates of occupancy and compensation.
What to do instead
Write out s.1 in your own words in one sentence and keep it at the top of your notes: land in a State is held in trust and administered by the Governor for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians, subject to the Act. Then, for every question, ask which of the Act's mechanisms (statutory right of occupancy, customary right of occupancy, grant, revocation) is actually in play before describing the interest.
Confusing a statutory right of occupancy with a customary right of occupancy when identifying who can grant it, what evidence of title exists, and which revocation and compensation rules apply.
Both are called 'rights of occupancy' and both appear in the same sections, so candidates answer from the label rather than from the grantor and the governing law; they then apply statutory compensation rules to a customary holding or vice versa.
What to do instead
Build a two-column comparison and drill it: grantor (Governor vs local government/community), applicable law (Act and State law vs customary law), evidence (certificate of occupancy vs proof of customary title, which the Act preserves), and the different treatment on revocation and compensation. Answer the identification question first, then apply that column's rules.
Describing revocation of a right of occupancy as requiring no reason or as available on any ground, and omitting the s.28 requirement of a stated public purpose or the s.44 Constitution condition for compulsory acquisition.
Candidates conflate the Act's revocation powers with general compulsory acquisition and forget that the Constitution imposes a prompt-payment and public-purpose requirement that the Act must be read against.
What to do instead
Separate the two regimes in your notes: revocation under the Act (s.28 grounds, notice, and the requirement that the purpose be stated) and compulsory acquisition under the Constitution and the relevant State law (public purpose, prompt payment of compensation). For each scenario, name the statute you are applying before you state the rule, and quote the ground for revocation from the facts.
Awarding the market value of the land itself as compensation on revocation, and forgetting that the Act limits compensation to the value of unexhausted improvements and, where relevant, the value of the right of occupancy and not the reversion.
Everyday intuition says 'take my land, pay me for my land', and candidates carry that intuition into the Act instead of checking what the Act actually says is compensable.
What to do instead
Memorise the compensation heads as a checklist (unexhausted improvements, value of the right of occupancy, resettlement costs where applicable, and any other prescribed head) and practise writing a short compensation computation for a hypothetical plot with a building, crops and a leasehold interest. State expressly which heads are excluded and why.
Treating a deed as validly executed without addressing attestation and the requirement that the execution be attested, or assuming a signature alone suffices for a deed of transfer.
Candidates learn 'signed, sealed and delivered' as a phrase and stop there, missing the attestation and witnessing requirements that make the deed effective and registrable.
What to do instead
For every conveyancing question, run a fixed execution checklist: parties with capacity, signature, seal where required, attestation by a witness, delivery, and date. Write the checklist out from memory weekly and apply it to one past-style scenario each time.
Advising that registration of a deed cures a defective root of title, or that an unregistered instrument is void rather than merely inadmissible in evidence until stamped and registered as required.
Candidates collapse the separate concepts of validity, admissibility and priority into one idea of 'registration makes it good', so they give a single answer where three different rules apply.
What to do instead
Keep three separate headings in your notes: validity (execution and capacity), admissibility (stamping and registration requirements), and priority (registration order and notice). For each instrument in a question, answer all three headings separately and state the consequence of non-compliance for each.
Investigating title by listing documents in the chain without testing each link, so a gap in the chain or a missing root is described rather than identified as a defect that defeats good title.
Candidates learn 'investigate the root of title and the chain' as a slogan and reproduce it, but never practise actually tracing a chain and spotting a break.
What to do instead
Practise with a constructed chain of five or six instruments and answer three questions at each link: does this document transfer the whole interest, is it properly executed and stamped, and does the next document connect to it without a gap? Write a one-page 'defects' log for each practice chain, then state whether good title can be made and what cure (further assurance, statutory declaration, vesting order) is needed.
Treating joint tenants and tenants in common as interchangeable, or assuming family land passes by will and can be partitioned by a single member without the family's consent.
Candidates remember the labels but not the consequences (survivorship, distinct shares, devolution on death) and treat family land as ordinary co-owned land, ignoring the role of the family head and principal members.
What to do instead
Write the distinguishing table from memory: survivorship (yes/no), shares (undivided vs distinct), devolution (survivorship vs estate on death), and severance. For family land, state who has capacity to alienate or partition (family head with principal members' concurrence, or the court) before advising on any transaction.
Answering a lease question with a description of a licence, or failing to distinguish a tenancy at will from a periodic tenancy when advising on notice to quit.
The words are used loosely in practice and candidates rely on the general sense of 'right to occupy' rather than on exclusive possession, certainty of term and rent, which are the tests that decide the category.
What to do instead
Apply the tests expressly in every answer: exclusive possession, fixed or ascertainable term, rent or other consideration, and intention to create a legal interest. Then state the notice consequences that follow from the category you chose, so the classification does the work in the answer.
Describing a mortgage as a transfer of ownership to the mortgagee, or failing to explain the remedies (possession, sale, foreclosure, appointment of receiver) and the requirement of proper notice before sale.
Candidates import the popular meaning of 'mortgage' and skip the statutory and contractual conditions that must be satisfied before a mortgagee exercises a power of sale, which is where most marks lie.
What to do instead
For every mortgage question, state the nature of the interest created (a charge securing repayment, with the equity of redemption retained), then list the remedies in order and the preconditions for each, especially default, notice and the requirement that the sale be in good faith and for proper value. Practise one sale scenario end to end.
Confusing an easement with a restrictive covenant or a profit à prendre, and answering that a covenant runs with the land without checking registration, notice and the burden/benefit rules.
All three are 'rights over another's land' and candidates group them, missing that easements are positive rights of use, profits are rights to take, and covenants are restrictions enforceable in equity subject to registration.
What to do instead
Define each in one line and give one example, then state the enforcement rule for each: easement (dominant and servient tenement, accommodation, registration where required), profit (right to take, usually granted expressly), covenant (benefit and burden, notice/registration, and the equitable remedies). Answer by naming the category before applying the rule.