I know you own a landed property or you desire to own one some day and I also know that you might have heard from estate developers, surveyors, land sellers or even lawyers that Certificate of Occupancy (CofO) of the land you acquire grants you a root of title as an evidence that you are the legal owner of the land or proves that you are the owner of the land. 

Well, I’m not a bearer of bad news but the bad news is that the Certificate of Occupancy doesn’t prove ownership as it is not enough to grant you a good root of title and it’s not ultimate prove that you are the legal owner of the land. It only raises a presumption of ownership in your favor which can be rebuttable. So take it from me that the certificate of occupancy of the property you own or you intend to own doesn’t really prove or show you are the owner of the property.

This rule was established by the Supreme Court while upholding the decision of the Appeal Court in the case of Joshua OGUNLEYE v. Babatayo ONI (S.C. 193/1987)[1990] NGSC 63. The court in it’s dictum stated  and I quote; “however, a general statement that may be made about the certificate of occupancy is that it raises a presumption in favour of the holder; albeit a rebuttable presumption that the holder has a right of occupancy”- per Belgore Jsc.

In the above case, Mr Joshua Ogunleye bought a land from a community who was proven does not have the ownership of the and therefore cannot sell the land as the land belongs to Babatayo Oni’s father.

Mr. Ogunleye  after the purchase of the land acquired a certificate of occupancy on the land from the state government and started developing the land.

Mr. Oni the rightful owner of the land got to know that his land has been sold by the community without his consent went to the land and demolished the structures already erected on the land by Ogunleye. Ogunleye took Oni to court for trespassing on his land.

At the high court, the court held that by the reason of Joshua Ogunleye acquiring the certificate of Occupancy on the land he’s the bonafide and legal owner of the land. Damages was awarded to him against Mr. Oni for Trespass.

Mr. Oni  went on appeal, the court of appeal reversed the decision of the high court and established that although Ogunleye acquired a certificate of occupancy on the land in question which raises the presumption that he is the legal owner of the land but you cannot acquire a property from the wrong means and get a certificate of occupancy to cover it up. When you acquire a property from the wrong owner, even if you get a certificate of occupancy on that property it won’t prove you are the rightful owner.

The matter went on to the Supreme Court were the court upheld the judgement of the court of appeal and reemphasizing that certificate of occupancy alone is not an evidence of ownership or a good root of title, you must show that you acquired the property from the rightful owner before the certificate of occupancy comes into play.

His Lordship Nnaemeka Agu Jsc in his dictum stated; “This appeal by the plaintiff brings into focus what is required to prove by a plaintiff who relies upon a grant for his proof of title to land. Incidentally, it exposes the weakness of a certificate of occupancy which has been granted where the grantee has no title to the land”.

By this judgement, the Certificate of Occupancy granted to a purchaser of land does not confer any title on him if the seller of the land have no title to the land or not the rightful owner of the land in question as it is he rule that you cannot give what you don’t have (Nemo dare potest quod non habet).

My best advice (out of goodwill) to you is to always consult a lawyer before you get into any transaction, it will save you a lot. 

JOSHUA OGUNLEYE V BABATAYO ONI (S.C. 193/1987)[1990] NGSC 63 (27 APRIL 1990).

China hits close to 99% primary education enrollment with less than 10% university attainment. They put all the good money in primary education because it is the bedrock of any nation.

America does the same with primary and secondary largely free (90% attainment). In the US and China, they massively and extensively subsidize basic education, making sure that quality is high. Want to attend college? Pay for it; loans are available.

In Nigeria, we flip it, subsidizing university education while paying no attention to basic education. That is why a primary school teacher earns $50 per month! #fix

Sure many of us here benefitted from that massive university subsidy, but if you look at the data over the last few years, one thing is evident: the poor who attend poor primary schools are evidently cut-off from those university subsidies as they cannot compete to be admitted. If that trajectory continues, inequality will keep scaling in the nation.

Africa’s greatest moment will come when we have a mechanism for all to rise. It is not enough that you have risen. It is not enough that I have risen. It’s time for the rise of the rest.

The knowledge of our young people is the wealth of the continent. Let’s build MINES of knowledge across Africa, liberate minds and  and advance the continent.

No nation can rise faster than its ability to create and apply knowledge. It has been like that since Ancient Egypt through the Roman Empire to the American era. #KnowledgeRules

Read my “Mines of Knowledge”.

Mines of Knowledge

Chinese regulators have asked Didi Global Inc. to delist from the New York Stock Exchange, in the latest move to control the country’s tech giants, Bloomberg reports, citing people with knowledge of the matter.

The report says the country’s tech watchdog wants management to take the company off the New York Stock Exchange because of concerns about leakage of sensitive data, quoting the people, who spoke on anonymity. They said the Cyberspace Administration of China, the agency responsible for data security in the country, has directed Didi to work out precise details, subject to government approval.

Proposals under consideration include a straight-up privatization or a share float in Hong Kong followed by a delisting from the U.S., the people added. If the privatization proceeds, the proposal will likely be at least the $14 IPO price since a lower offer so soon after the June initial public offering could prompt lawsuits or shareholder resistance, the people said. If there is a secondary listing in Hong Kong, the IPO price would probably be a discount to the share price in the U.S., $8.11 as of Wednesday’s close.

Deliberations continue and it’s possible regulators will backtrack on their request, the people said. Either option would deal a severe blow to a ride-hailing giant that pulled off the largest U.S. IPO by a Chinese firm since Alibaba Group Holding Ltd’s in 2014, the report said.

The move is in continuation of what started late last year. Didi has joined a host of other Chinese companies who got into the bad book of Chinese authorities. Alibaba, Ant Group and Tencent have all felt the full weight of the authorities in the tech crackdown designed to curtail the excesses of China’s tech industry.

Didi has grown to become the biggest ride-hailing company in the world, eclipsing Uber, after it purchased the American company’s  operation in China in 2016.

Didi’s trouble started when it made the decision to file for IPO with the New York Stock Exchange in July. In line with its recent reforms targeting its internet market, Chinese regulators quickly launched multiple investigations into the company. Alibaba, Tencent and others have received proportionate penalties according to the weight of their sins, and the regulator has some lined up Didi.

In July, Didi was restricted from registering new customers a few days after filing for IPO with the New York Stock Exchange, and eventually was removed from app stores in China.

While the delisting could be part of a package of punishments for Didi, the authorities are likely going to treat the ride-hailing giant the same way they treated others. The Ant Group, Alibaba and others received the government’s proposal for investment stakes in their companies that would be run by state-owned firms.

Bloomberg reported in September that Beijing’s municipal government has proposed an investment in Didi that would give state-run firms effective control. The investment could help Didi finance the repurchase of its U.S.-traded shares.

Didi is currently controlled by the management team of co-founder Cheng Wei and President Jean Liu, which received aggregate voting power of 58% after the company’s U.S. initial public offering. SoftBank and Uber Technologies Inc. are Didi’s biggest minority shareholders, according to Bloomberg.

But delisting from New York Stock Exchange wouldn’t cut all the trouble for Didi, the company will still have questions to answer at home.

“Even if Didi shifts its listing to Hong Kong, it will have to address the data security concerns that have drawn regulatory scrutiny. The company may have to give up control of its data to a third-party — again undercutting its price tag,” the report said.

However, Beijing’s move to delist Didi from NYSE could pose a big bilateral challenge to China. In the face of trade war between the US and China that has deteriorated over the years, such action could send a panic signal across.

“A withdrawal from U.S. bourses could stoke fears of an exodus of Chinese firms as Washington and Beijing quarrel about access to listed firms’ books,” Bloomberg said.

It is a concern that some officials in China are worried about. On Thursday, a senior Chinese regulatory official said such delistings would be a setback for relations with the U.S., while offering broad support for Hong Kong as an alternative venue.

The battle to protect private data has intensified in recent times, with both the U.S. and China enacting reforms targeting data-collecting companies. However, the two largest economies in the world have left room open for diplomatic solutions to their bilateral differences.

At home, China has been insouciant about the billions of dollars being wiped off its tech industry as a result of its tech crackdown, and the push for ‘common prosperity.’ But deteriorated relationship with the U.S. has broader consequences that may very much depend on how Beijing handles Didi’s NYSE listing.