The Supreme Court has held that the Federal Government lacks the right to challenge actions taken by Lagos State Government in relation to the various landed properties and lands it earlier held in Lagos, but which it has sold.
The apex court said this in a ruling yesterday on an objection raised by the Attorney General of Lagos (for the state government) against a suit by Attorney General of the Federation (on behalf of the Federal Government).
The Federal Government had, by the suit marked SC/50/2011, challenged Lagos State Government’s exercise of ownership rights over such lands and properties by directing buyers of such land and properties to re-apply for certificate of occupancy and regularization of consent.
Using the property known as No: 10 Gerrard Road, Ikoyi (also known as Trenchard Place) as a test-case, out of thousands of such lands and properties in Lagos, the FG argued that the directive by Lagos amounted to an interference with FG’s powers, under the Land Use Act, over federal lands in the state.
Lagos State filed an objection to the suit, in which it challenged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear the case. It also challenged plaintiff’s locus standi to institute the action
The state argued, among others, that the subject matter of the suit, which is land, was outside the jurisdiction of the court, more so when the FG has divested its interests in the lands and properties.
It challenged the right of the FG to query its decision on the land and property, which it (the FG) has sold to private individuals and companies.
In a unanimous decision yesterday, a seven-man panel of the Supreme Court upheld Lagos’ objection and struck out the suit by the FG.
In the lead ruling by Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, but read by Justice Kudrat Kekere-Ekun, the court held that the objection by Lagos State was well founded.
“The plaintiff’s real grouse relates to the ‘regularisation consent’ the defendant insists persons, who acquired federal lands must obtain form it (Lagos State Govt) before title effectively vests in the transferees.
“No. 10 Gerrard Road, by the plaintiff himself, is ‘a test case’ out of thousands of such lands title which, having been already transferred to others, no longer inheres in the plaintiff.
“In the instant matter, it is thus not enough for the plaintiff to assert that the control and management of federal lands exclusively vests in the President, who holds same in trust for the Federation, but to further show that defendant’s act of interference persists in spite of the plaintiff’s persisting exclusive title to the land.
“Having transferred its title in the land to others, it is untenable for the plaintiff herein to assert that the very title that ceases to vest in it, is adversely threatened by defendant’s interference.
“The plaintiff, who lacks the standing to sue, cannot invoke the original jurisdiction of this court to assert a title he no longer has.
“It will be academic and hypothetical for the court to proceed on the matter,” Justice Muhammad said.
Other members of the panel – Justices Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Mary Peter-Odili, Olukayode Ariwoola, Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, Chima Centus Nweze and Amiru Sanusi – agreed with the lead ruling.