Land Acquisition and Compensation under Nigeria’s Land Use Act 1978

Abstract

This article presents a full-length, critically rigorous legal investigation into compulsory land acquisition, the revocation of rights of occupancy, and statutory compensation mechanisms under Nigeria’s Land Use Act 1978 (LUA). Examining the delicate equilibrium between executive eminent domain and private property protections, the study evaluates the statutory framework against Sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Through a doctrinal methodology anchored in primary statutory provisions, authoritative judicial precedents, professional valuation guidelines, and comparative legal frameworks, the article addresses a fundamental research question: To what extent does the Land Use Act 1978 provide an adequate, constitutionally consistent, procedurally fair, and effective framework for compulsory land acquisition and compensation in Nigeria? The analysis reveals significant structural friction between statutory compensation formulas under Section 29, which restrict recovery to unexhausted improvements and deprecated replacement costs, and constitutional guarantees of prompt, fair indemnification. Furthermore, the paper examines the pivotal role of the Nigerian judiciary as a constitutional guardian, demonstrating how courts have strictly construed Section 28 revocation powers, invalidated statutory ouster clauses under Section 47(2), enforced mandatory personal service requirements (Orianzi v AG Rivers State), and established prompt payment as a mandatory condition precedent for valid acquisition (Olateju v Commissioner for Lands, Kwara State). The article contrasts general land administration under the LUA with specialized extractive regimes under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, drawing comparative insights from India’s RFCTLARR Act 2013 and International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 5. Finally, the study proposes actionable legislative amendments to modernize valuation criteria, transition to open market valuation, entrench procedural transparency, and safeguard customary property rights.

Keywords

References

Scholarly discussion is intended for respectful academic engagement, critique, clarification, and knowledge exchange. Comments are moderated to preserve the integrity of the journal community.

All comments are subject to moderation to preserve scholarly quality and community standards. Do not include confidential peer-review, reviewer identity, private manuscript, or submission information.

Sign in or create an account to participate in the scholarly discussion.