Methods of Assessment and Processes of Revocation of Rights of Occupancy and Compensation in Ebonyi State, Nigeria

Land is universally recognized as one of the most critical resources for human survival, socio-economic development, and cultural identity. In Nigeria, land ownership and administration have historically been complex, shaped by customary tenure systems, colonial legislation, and post-independence reforms. The enactment of the Land Use Act of 1978 marked a watershed moment in the evolution of Nigerian land tenure, giving the governor of each state the authority to hold all land in trust for the people. While the Act was intended to ensure equitable access to land, facilitate agricultural and industrial development, and curb speculative landholding, it has generated sustained controversy due to its far-reaching implications for land rights, compulsory acquisition, and compensation. Central to the Act is the concept of statutory and customary rights of occupancy, which may be revoked by the Governor for overriding public interest. Section 28 of the Land Use Act empowers the Governor to revoke such interests for purposes ranging from urban development and mining to infrastructural expansion. In theory, revocation is accompanied by compensation for unexhausted improvements as provided under Section 29 of the Act, as well as Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to “prompt payment of compensation” where property is compulsorily acquired. However, in practice, the processes of revocation and compensation remain among the most contested aspects of land governance in Nigeria. In Ebonyi State, the stakes are particularly high. Created in 1996, Ebonyi is predominantly agrarian, with the majority of its population depending on land for rice cultivation, yam farming, cassava production, and palm produce. Beyond agriculture, the state is also endowed with solid minerals such as lead, zinc, and granite, which have attracted mining investments. These economic activities, coupled with rapid urbanization and infrastructural expansion, have intensified government acquisitions of land through revocation of rights of occupancy. Yet, for rural farmers and communities, land represents not just an economic resource but also a cultural heritage tied to lineage and identity. The compulsory takeover of such land without adequate compensation has often been perceived as an act of dispossession, giving rise to grievances, litigation, and sometimes violent resistance. Several challenges characterize revocation and compensation practices in Ebonyi State. First, inadequacy of compensation is a recurrent issue, since the Land Use Act excludes land value from compensation, limiting payment to unexhausted improvements such as crops and structures. Second, delays in payment undermine the effectiveness of compensation, as inflation diminishes the value of pay-outs. Third, lack of transparency in the assessment process fuels suspicion among affected communities. Fourth, there is a disconnect between statutory provisions and customary practices, as traditional landholders often contest the legitimacy of revocation orders issued without their consent. Finally, the judiciary, though constitutionally empowered to adjudicate disputes, is often inaccessible due to high costs and delays, leaving many affected persons without effective redress. The study aimed at examining the methods of assessment and processes of revocation of rights of occupancy and compensation in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. In order to achieve this aim, the following specific objectives are derived: (i) to ascertain how Ebonyi State's rights of occupation are revoked; (ii) to investigate the process used to determine the amount of compensation paid to the claimants; (iii) to determine the difficulties in resolving compensation claims; (iv) to ascertain the best ways to enhance Ebonyi State's revocation of occupancy rights and compensation procedures. Besides, several scholars have examined compulsory acquisition and compensation in Nigeria, yet relatively few studies have focused on the specific experiences of Ebonyi State. Umezurike (1988), Okonkwo (2019), and Nwabueze (2020) have explored the general inadequacies of the Land Use Act, they do not fully capture the peculiar dynamics of land acquisition in Ebonyi, where dependence on land for subsistence farming is particularly pronounced. Moreover, existing literature often emphasizes the legal framework without adequately engaging the perspectives of displaced communities or evaluating the actual methods of valuation employed by government authorities. This study, therefore, seeks to fill these gaps by critically examining the methods of assessment and processes of revocation of rights of occupancy and compensation in Ebonyi State. Specifically, it interrogates the adequacy of existing assessment techniques, the transparency of revocation procedures, and the socio-economic implications of compensation practices. By doing so, the study not only contributes to academic debates on land law and policy in Nigeria but also offers practical recommendations for enhancing fairness, transparency, and efficiency in land governance within Ebonyi State and beyond. This study reviews existing literature on three key areas which is very relevant: (i) the Land Use Act and its implications; (iii) Compensation practices; and (iv) empirical findings specific to Ebonyi State and the wider South-East region. Nigeria's most comprehensive land tenure reform is the Land Use Act of 1978. Umezulike (1988) claims that the Act was passed in order to curb speculative property transactions, harmonize land tenure systems, and increase the amount of land accessible for government led development. The Act radically changed the relationship between landowners and the state by giving the governor of each state ownership of all land. The Land Use Act of 1978, which centralized property ownership under state administration, is a key piece of legislation governing land tenure in Nigeria. According to Olawale (2018), this legal structure has led to ambiguities in the way land rights are administered, especially when it comes to compensation.  Kejiofor (1999) noted that the Act created dual tenure systems, statutory and customary, which often overlap and cause confusion in implementation. In practice, customary landholders still perceive themselves as true owners of land, even when holding only a statutory certificate of occupancy. In Ebonyi State, where the majority of land is held under customary tenure, this contradiction is particularly acute. The Act gives the government the authority to revoke land rights for public use while mandating compensation, but lack of clarity in terms and conditions frequently results in disputes (Fagbohun, 2005). Okorie (2018) notes, land in rural areas continues to be allocated by traditional leaders and family heads, even though legally, it vests in the governor. This dissonance between law and practice fuels resistance to government revocation orders and disputes over compensation. One of the most contentious elements of the Land Use Act is the revocation of land rights. The Land Use Act Section 28 gives the governor the authority to cancel occupancy rights in cases of overriding public interest. Landowners have frequently suffered as a result of the expansive interpretation of the term public interest. Nwabueze (2020) argues that the term "overriding public interest" is ambiguous and has been used by state governments to defend revocation for non-public objectives, such as allocations to private investors under the pretense of development. Legal authorities have stressed that revocation must be for a legitimate public purpose and must adhere to due process, as demonstrated in cases such as Olatunji v. Military Governor of Oyo State (1994). However, misuse of discretion has tarnished many revocations in practice. According to empirical data from all around Nigeria, proper consultation is rarely a part of revocation procedures. In their research on forcible acquisition in Northern Nigeria, Aliyu and Ahmad (2014) discovered that revocation notices were frequently delivered to landowners without first consulting them. Also many communities in the South-East felt disenfranchised when their land was taken for urban growth projects without their consent. Meanwhile the revocation of rights of occupancy in Nigeria, particularly in states like Ebonyi, raises significant questions regarding land ownership, individual rights, and government authority. This literature review examines existing scholarship on the processes and methodologies involved in the assessment of compensation following the revocation of land rights, highlighting key themes, challenges, and recommendations.  Nwogbaga (2010) criticizes the revocation processes detailed in the Land Use Act. He contends that the notification and hearing processes are often inadequately implemented. Notably, the requirement for formal notification appears muddled by inefficiencies, where landowners are frequently not duly informed about revocations, leading to feelings of disenfranchisement. The inherent lack of transparency undermines public trust as emphasized in studies by Otu (2015), who asserts that it is essential for affected individuals to have access to legal counsel and a clear understanding of their rights during these proceedings. Several challenges inhibit effective revocation and compensation processes. Corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies are significant barriers, as noted by Akintola (2019). This study outlines how these issues can lead to disputes that prolong the resolution process and ultimately result in injustices for landowners. Additionally, there is a noticeable disparity in compensation levels, often reflecting socio-economic biases, with those from less affluent backgrounds receiving disproportionately lower compensation than wealthier landowners (Adeyemi, 2021). The perspectives of various stakeholders, including government officials, legal practitioners, and affected landowners, play a vital role in understanding the dynamics of land revocation and compensation.  Ibe (2022) indicates that landowners often feel marginalized in the decision-making process. Government officials, while tasked with enforcing land policies, report facing pressures that compromise their ability to adhere strictly to legal frameworks. The methods of assessing compensation traditionally, is calculated using the market value of the land (Olaoye, 2019). However, this method often fails to account for the socio-economic value attached to the land by its owners. According to Balogun (2020), the Replacement Cost Method and the Income Approach should be considered to provide a more accurate representation of potential losses experienced by landowners. Furthermore, the assessment often lacks consistency, leading to inadequate compensation outcomes which have been documented in various case studies across the region (Ekong, 2017). Several researchers advocate improvements to enhance the fairness and effectiveness of the revocation and compensation processes. Otu (2015) suggests implementing standardized procedures for compensation assessments and establishing independent review boards to handle grievances effectively. Balogun (2020) posits that training programs for government officials on ethical land management practices can improve processes and enhance public confidence in the system. The Land Use Act restricts compensation to the value of “unexhausted improvements” on land (Section 29), excluding the land value itself. This has been one of the most criticized aspects of the Act. Okonkwo (2019) argues that this provision contradicts the spirit of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees prompt and adequate compensation for compulsory acquisition. Many Scholars highlight several valuation methods used in Nigeria:

• Replacement Cost Method: Recommended by Ogedengbe and Ayoola (2016) as the most equitable approach for rural structures and crops.
• Depreciated Replacement Cost: Used for older or dilapidated buildings.
• Market Value Approach: Favoured for crops and economic trees, based on prevailing market prices.
• Capitalization of Income: Applied to income-generating properties, such as commercial farms.

Despite these techniques, assessments often fall short. Omirin and Nubi (2013) found that valuation data in Nigeria are often outdated, leading to under compensation.  Adejumo (2020) noted that valuation officers sometimes face political pressure to minimize compensation costs. The inadequacy of compensation has wider socio-economic consequences. Aluko (2012) observes that displacement without fair compensation can lead to impoverishment, social unrest, and loss of trust in government. This aligns with global findings, such as World Bank (2001), which emphasize that compensation should aim not only to indemnify loss but also to restore livelihoods. Ebonyi State, created in 1996, is predominantly agrarian, with rice, yam, cassava, and palm produce as major crops. Land is central to livelihoods, making revocation and compensation particularly sensitive. Several studies have examined land acquisition in the state. Eze (2021) found that most affected farmers perceived government compensation as inadequate, particularly when agricultural land was acquired for mining and road projects. Nwali (2019) reported that delays in compensation payments often exacerbated grievances, with inflation eroding the real value of pay-outs. Also, studies have noted that revocation procedures in Ebonyi often lack transparency. Okorie (2018) observed that many affected communities receive revocation notices without sufficient explanation of the public purpose. In some cases, land acquired for “public interest” was later allocated to private investors, raising suspicions of abuse. These findings are consistent with regional studies in the Nigeria. Onwuchekwa (2020) reported similar experiences in Anambra State, where compulsory acquisition for urban projects triggered prolonged legal disputes. This study seeks to fill these gaps by examining in detail the methods of assessment and revocation processes in Ebonyi State, drawing on both statutory provisions and practical realities.

METHODOLOGY

The techniques of evaluating land and improvements for compensation, as well as the legal administrative procedures for revoking the rights of occupancy in Ebonyi State, Nigeria, were examined using a survey research approach. To get a scientific conclusion, the gathered data was analyzed using the proper statistical methods. The study focused on rural and peri-urban areas of Ebonyi State between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2024, where government acquisitions for public uses such as roads, schools, and health facilities took place. The revocations of customary or statutory rights of possession by state authorities and Local Government Councils, as well as any related compensation processes, were the main focus of this study. The targeted population are the affected persons/households whose rights of occupancy (customary or statutory) were revoked within the study period, institutional actors involved in revocation and compensation, State Ministry of Lands & Survey, State Valuation Office, Local Government Lands Units, State Ministry of Justice, Surveyors, Valuers, representatives from traditional institutions and the documentary corpus like acquisition and revocation instruments for example notices, gazettes, parcel plans, valuation reports, payment vouchers, and relevant court judgments/tribunal decisions. In order to investigate the procedures for revocation of rights of occupancy and ways of determining compensation, the study was conducted in the thirteen local government area of Ebonyi State, Nigeria. The study area is bordered with Benue to the North, Cross River State to the East, Abia and Imo State to the South and Enugu State to the West. The capital of the study area is Abakaliki. Ebonyi State is one of the smallest state in Nigeria having 5935 square kilometers of the land mass. There are thirteen (13) local government area in the state which include Ohaukwu, Ebonyi, Ikwo, Ezza North, Ezza West, Afikpo North, Afikpo South, Ohaozara, Abakaliki, Izzi, Ishielu, Onicha and Ivo. The majority of government infrastructure development and renovation takes place in these local government regions, which results in the revocation of occupation rights and compensation payments. Buildings and other structural improvements of various kinds, including kitchens, yam bans, earth roads, ponds, grave yards, xshrines, groves, woodlands, economic trees, and seasonal farm crops of various species at various stages of growth and maturity, are found on the affected parcels of land. The population for the study was chosen using stratified random sampling techniques. Nwana (2008) observes that “elements in every group are sampled; this assured the full representation of the present population by the sample”.

Table 1 Pattern of Selection of Respondents

Source: Field Survey 2025

Data Analysis Techniques: The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods, which quantify percentages, mean scores, variances, and standard deviations. The findings were then displayed in tables.

Data Presentation, Analysis and Discussions 

Tables 2 and 3 show the respondents' greatest levels of education and years of public service.

Table 2: Distribution of Highest Academic Qualifications of the Respondents

Source: Field Survey 2025

The respondents in Table 2 possess adequate academic training, enabling them to understand and confidently respond to the questionnaire's questions. They all possess a first degree or its equivalent in education.

Table 3: Respondents’ Years of Service

Source:  Field Survey202

More than 56% of the respondents have served in the Ministries for more than ten years. As a result, they were aware of how the system worked. The respondents' distributions by professional affiliations, qualifications, and public service are displayed in Tables 4 and 5.

4: Professional Qualifications/Affiliations Respondents

Source:  Field Survey 2025

Table 4 shows that, despite having a basic education, less than 10% of the respondents lack the necessary professional affiliation.

Table 5: Respondents’ Grade Level of Service

Source:  Field Survey 2025

Processes of Revocation of Rights of Occupancy

About 51% of the responders in Table 5 are schedule officers, while roughly 49% are management personnel. The processes of revoking occupancy rights and paying compensation claims to claimants include the respondents in a significant way. The grounds for revocation of rights of occupancy held by individuals, communities, and corporate organizations on land are outlined in Section 28 of the Land Use Act Cap. L5, LFN, 2004. According to numerous Supreme Court rulings, revocation of rights of occupancy is a nullity, ultra vires, and a futile exercise. Due process must be rigorously followed when the rights of occupancy are revoked. Revocation of rights of occupation involves the following steps: Revocation of rights of occupation involves the following steps:

i. Determining the amount of land required to serve the public interest;

ii. Delineating the boundaries;

iii. Gazetting the revocation of rights of occupancy and properly serving the revocation notice to the holders of the occupancy rights on the land;

iv. Identifying and evaluating any unexhausted improvements, developments, economic trees, and crops on the land for compensation claims and payment.

When the government's agents entered the property without following the proper procedures, it was considered trespass; the government was required to pay damages and leave the property. Respecting due process is crucial for the long-term revocation of tenancy rights, with the exception of emergencies. Regarding compliance with due process in the revocation of rights of occupation, the survey respondents' opinions are shown in Table 6.                                  

Table 6:  Breach of Due Process in Revocation of Rights of Occupancy

Source:  Field Survey 2025

According to the aforementioned analysis, most respondents concurred that a violation of due process in the compensation procedure would contravene provisions in the Land Use Act and cause delays in obtaining land for development

Methods of Assessment of Compensation Payable to the Claimants

Usually, the claimants appoint their representative valuer attorneys, who collaborate to enumerate and evaluate the claimants' remaining interests in the revoked land. The communities/claimants reject the government's valuers' assessment in its entirety, and the government's valuers reject the private enumeration and assessment carried out by the claimants' valuer-attorneys. The communities/ claimants usually oppose government representatives entering the area to start development activities unless the majority of them are satisfied that their interests were sufficiently protected. When the government fails to meet the interests of the claimants, the community becomes agitated and blocks access to the property for development. It has been shown that the best way to resolve disputes between the government and community sides on the payment of compensation owed to claimants for revoked rights of occupancy is to have government and community representatives jointly carried out the enumeration and assessment.  The distribution of respondents regarding agreement or disagreement between the government and community sides on enumeration and assessment of compensation claims owed to claimants is displayed in table 7 below.

Table 7: Joint Enumeration and Assessment Approach is Acceptable to both Sides

Source:  Field Survey 2025

More than 81% of respondents concur that a joint enumeration and evaluation of the compensation due is a reasonable strategy from the perspectives of the community and the government, as shown in Table 7. Less than 1% of respondents strongly disagree that the parties find the strategy to be excellent and acceptable. This percentage is insignificant. To guarantee acceptance of the revocation of rights of occupancy, the assessed compensation that must be paid, and the peaceful entry of government agents onto the land for development, joint enumeration and assessment should always be investigated and made available. The joint report of the compensation payable must be signed by the community's accredited attorneys and the government's lawfully authorized officer.  Revocation of occupation rights and payment of compensation claims in the research area are fraught with difficulties.

Challenges to Revocation of Rights of Occupancy

Revocation of occupation rights and payment of compensation claims in the research area are fraught with difficulties. Among the difficulties are:

i. Litigation 

Sometimes, towns and individuals may suit the government or its agent to oppose to the revocation of their rights of possession. This is particularly true when they feel that due process was not followed or that, in light of what they previously gave up to the government, the community or person is being unfairly dispossessed of their viable land. At times, lawsuit results from either refusing to pay or rejecting the provided compensation. The opinions of the respondents on these latter issues are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Refusal to Pay or Rejection of Compensation Leads to Litigation

Source: Field Survey 2025

Table 8 shows that more than 88% of respondents firmly believe that litigation results from the governments or its land-accessing agent's unwillingness to pay compensation or from the community's or individual's outright rejection of the compensation owed. However, just about 12% of respondents believed that litigation would not result from the government or it’s representative refusing to pay or rejecting proposed compensation. Due to the lengthy litigation process, access to land is suspended and the development project is put on hold.  The collaborative enumeration and assessment approach has been proven to be highly successful and advantageous for both parties in preventing litigation and its consequences.

ii. Prolonged resolution of claims for compensation
The 1999 Nigerian Constitution, as amended by the Land Use Act, never considered that compensation claims would be delayed in cases where the public interest overrode the rights of possession. Because of this, the Act and the Constitution's pertinent clauses stipulate that compensation claims must be quickly paid to the claimants. Unfortunately, this has never happened. Revocation of rights of occupancy is portrayed in this scenario as a form of government punishment and a way to make the impacted citizens poorer. The distribution of respondents' opinions on compensation claim settlement delays is shown in Table 9

Table 9: Government Postponement of Compensation Settlement Even After Takeover

Source: Field Survey 2025

More than 80% of the respondents agreed, as shown in Table 9, that the government delayed paying compensation for years after its agents gained access to the land. To put it another way, those who had previously benefited from the land's occupation are uprooted, parking is removed, and compensation is still not given as determined.  It is easier to envision than to experience the financial suffering that such a delay causes for the displaced citizens. The authors of the Act and the Constitution did not intend for compensation to be paid later than expected. As a result, even when the assessed compensation is paid many years after the occupants' assessment and displacement, nothing is done to address the time-value-of-money on the amount.

 iii.  Diversion of Payment of Compensation Claims

When compensation is not paid on time, it might be diverted or taken over by the wrong people under various pretenses. When compensation claims are delayed, some dishonest and avaricious members of the community have the chance to work with dishonest government personnel to divert funds owed to legitimate claimants. The respondents' thoughts on the effects of compensation claim payment delays are displayed in Table 10.

Table 10: Delay in Payment Deprives the Genuine Claimants

Source: Field Survey 2025

In Table 10, more than 66% of respondents agreed that legitimate claimants are deprived when compensation is not paid promptly. Only about 33 percent opined otherwise. Therefore, there is a good chance that dishonest government officials who are waiting to be compromised are occasionally the cause of the compensation delay. These dishonest officials adopt a stance that suggests paying compensation claims is a favor against the rights of the dispossessed.
The consequences of diverting compensation payments include court cases and restlessness among young people, which typically impede development projects' advancement. The distribution of respondents' opinions regarding the potential for lawsuits resulting from compensation payment diversion is displayed in Table 11.

Table 11: Possibility of Suit Cases Arising from Diversion of Compensation Payments