Governor’s Consent Is Not Proof of Ownership- Clearing a Persistent Misconception in Nigerian Land Transactions
Introduction
In Nigerian land transactions, few concepts are as routinely misunderstood and as casually relied upon as Governor’s Consent. Once a Deed of Assignment bears the Governor’s endorsement, many purchasers assume that the hardest part of the transaction is over and that whatever issues may have existed with the land have been settled by that approval. In practice, consent is often treated as the final seal of ownership, something that gives comfort that the title is secure, and no further questions need to be asked. That assumption, however, is legally incorrect and has been responsible for a significant number of land disputes across the country.
Governor’s Consent does not confer ownership, it does not cure defects in title, and it does not protect a purchaser who buys from someone without a valid interest to transfer. Its function is far more limited. It satisfies a statutory requirement under the Land Use Act regulating how interests in land may be transferred, nothing more. The problem is not that the law is unclear on this point; the courts have been consistent for decades. The real issue is that commercial practice has drifted away from legal principle, with consent being treated as proof of ownership when it was never intended to play that role. This article examines the true legal effect of Governor’s Consent, how Nigerian courts have treated it, and why proper due diligence remains the only reliable test of ownership in land transactions.
