Feature/OPED
Looking at the Savannah Bank vs Ajilo Legal Battle
By Benita Ayo
- The Facts of the Case
A deed of Mortgage was executed between Savannah Bank and Ajilo and upon default, Savannah Bank sought to sell the property involved in the mortgage by advertising the auction sale. When Ajilo became aware of the purported sale, he went to the High Court of Lagos to sue for declaration that the Deed of Mortgage was void and also that the Auction Notice was also void.
The major grounds upon which the action was brought were that, by section 22 of the Land Use Act, 1978, the consent of the Governor of Lagos State ought to be first sought and obtained and as no consent was sought and obtained, both the Deed of Mortgage and the Auction Notice were void.
The trial Court held that failure to obtain the required consent of the Governor under S. 22 of the Act has rendered the Deed of Mortgage null and void and the mortgage transaction is illegal.
Upon an appeal at the Court of Appeal by Savannah Bank, the Court held that every right holder whether under S. 34 or S. 36 of the Land Use Act requires the consent of the Governor before he can transfer, mortgage or otherwise dispose of his interest in the Right of Occupancy. The Appeal was thus dismissed.
On further Appeal at the Supreme Court, the above position was affirmed with the Appeal dismissed.
- COMMENTS
2.2 PRINCIPLE
The general principle of law in respect of alienation of interest in property was actually derived from the provisions of Section 22 Land Use Act, 1978 which provides that;
“It shall not be lawful for a holder of statutory Right of Occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his Right of Occupancy or any part thereof by Assignment, Mortgage, Transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained”.
The above provision was later on interpreted in the case of Savannah Bank v. Ajilo which became the locus classicus for the legal principle that “Where a holder desires to alienate his interest in a Certificate of Occupancy, he must first obtain the Governor’s consent to make such transfer valid according to S. 22 of the Land Use Act….”
- APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE ON VARIOUS CASES
The principal statute regulating land tenure system in Nigeria being the Land Use Act conferred the ownership of Land in the Federation on the Governor of each State.
The implication of this is that Freehold title to land becomes abolished with the State Government holding all Land in the State in trust for the citizens. Thus, anyone seeking to acquire interest in any landed property or seeking to alienate same by way of Assignment, Lease or Mortgage must do so after seeking and obtaining the consent of the State Governor. See S. 22 Land Use Act.
The principle has been applied by the courts in a plethora of cases some of which will be briefly discussed below.
- IMPLICATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
Failure to seek and obtain the requisite consent renders such transaction invalid. This was the butt of the matter in the instant case of Savannah Bank v. Ajilo which facts of the case as well as the final judicial pronouncements were stated above.
As stated earlier on, the Courts have applied the principle in the Ajilo’s case in some cases such as HARUNA v. YARO (2016) LPELR-41554 (CA) where the Court held that;
“On the issue of Governor’s consent, it is correct that the combined effect of Sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act is to render null and void any alienation or transfer of a Right of Occupancy or interest or right there under without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained”.
In yet another case of SIMM COMPUTER RESOURCES LTD & ANOR v. FIRST INLAND BANK (2016) LPELR-40493 (CA) the Court decided that,
“The alienation of a right in a Certificate of Occupancy under the Land Use Act is clearly covered by Section 22 of the Act. it provides as follows:
“It shall not be lawful for the holder of a statutory Right of Occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his Right of Occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained.”
Another relevant provision is Section 26 of the Land Use Act which says:
“Any transaction or any instrument which purports to confer on or rest in any person any interest or right over land other than in accordance with the provision of this Act shall be null and void.”
These provisions are clear and straight forward and therefore ought to be given their literal interpretation or meaning. The Section has received judicial attention in a plethora of cases and the locus classicus is the case of SAVANNAH BANK OF NIGERIA LTD v. AMMEL. O. AJILO (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 97) 254 wherein the Court held that where a holder desires to alienate his interest in a Certificate of Occupancy, he must first obtain the Governor’s consent to make such transfer valid according to Section 22 of the Land Use Act. …………. The Supreme Court in the case of I.T.I. v. ADEREMI (1999) 6 SCNJ 1 held that there are two stages to alienation of interest in Land and they are;
- The holder may enter into a contract of sale of his right, at that stage he does not need the Governor’s consent.
- The second stage is that of alienating the right that is the stage when he assigns his right by a deed of assignment, to now vest the legal estate in the purchaser, and he needs the Governor’s consent to make the transaction valid.”
- EXCEPTIONS OR CURRENT LEGAL POSITION IN VIEW OF SAVANNAH BANK v. AJILO
It is viewed from a different standpoint that the legal stance in Savannah Bank v. Ajilo rather promotes sharp practices such as a party benefitting from his own wrong.
This was exactly the situation in Savannah Bank v. Ajilo where the Defendant in this case sought to prevent the Plaintiff from selling off the mortgaged property in an auction sale by invoking the provisions of Section 22 Land Use Act, 1978.
While still conceding the fact that where a person in alienating his interest in property must seek the consent of the State Governor in order for such alienation to be valid, the failure to obtain the said consent before executing the Deed of Conveyance does not in itself invalidate the transaction. It only makes the transaction inchoate or incomplete.
See for instance the case of HARUNA v. BANK OF AGRICULTURE LTD & ORS (2016) LPELR-40467 (CA) where the Court concluded that,
“The Courts have held that there is nothing in the Land Use Act preventing the execution of an instrument before the consent of the Governor is obtained. It simply means that the agreement entered into is inchoate (Incomplete) until the Governor’s consent is sought and obtained.”
Also in YARO v. AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD & ORS (2007) LPELR-3516 (SC), it was held that;
“The 3rd Respondent has raised the question of Section 22 of Land Use Act, concisely, the section requires that Governor’s consent to the mortgage deal has to be first had and obtained otherwise the contract is void. I think with respect that the 3rd Respondent’s objection is lame in that as decided in Awojugbagbe v. Chinukwe & Anor (Supra), it is after the mortgage has been executed that obtaining of the Governor’s consent falls due. It is normally after the parties have agreed that the Deed of Assignment is prepared and sent for Governor’s consent. The instant mortgage therefore has not fallen foul of Section 22 of the Land Use Decree.”
In practice, whenever interest in property is transferred from the owner to a buyer, the relevant Deed of Conveyance is prepared and executed between the parties prior to obtaining the consent of the State Governor. The courts have held that this procedure does not invalidate the transaction but rather, no interest has yet passed to the buyer.
See the case of AWOJUGBAGBE LIGHT INDUSTRIES LTD v. CHINUKWE & ANOR (1995) LPLER-650 (SC) for instance where the Supreme Court held that;
“A close study of Section 22(2) of the Land Use Act clearly confirms that it does recognise cases where some form of written agreement or instrument executed in evidence of the relevant transaction is submitted to the Governor in order that the necessary consent under Section 22(1) may be signified by endorsement thereon. This being so, I do not conceive that it can be argued with any degree of seriousness that there is anything unlawful in the entering into or execution of Exhibit E before the Governor’s consent was obtained as this procedure is expressly covered by Section 22 (2) of the Land Use Act. The legal consequence that arises in such a situation is that no interest in land passes under the agreement until the necessary consent is obtained. Such an agreement so executed becomes inchoate until the consent of the governor is obtained after which it can be said to be complete and fully effective. I am therefore of the firm view that Section 22 (1) of the Land Use Act prohibits the alienation of a Right of Occupancy without the consent of the governor first had and obtained but does not prohibit agreement to alienate or in respect of terms and conditions for the purpose of effecting such alienation if and when the Governor gives his consent to the transaction in issue.”
CONCLUSION
Finally, it has been discussed that a party seeking to alienate his interest in property whether in part or in whole as is the cases with Assignment, Leases or Mortgage, must first seek and obtain the consent of the State Governor. This does not however mean that he cannot execute a document evidencing the transaction as could be gleaned from the aforementioned authorities. See HARUNA v. BANK OF AGRICULTURE LTD & ORS (SUPRA).
However, what this implies is that notwithstanding the execution of a document of conveyance, the transfer is incomplete until the requisite consent is sought and had and this is usually in practice done by endorsement in the column for it within the document of conveyance.
Finally, the implication of a party’s failure to seek and obtain the Governor’s consent in property transactions according to the aforementioned case of HARUNA (SUPRA) is that the transaction is incomplete rather than null and void as was the case in Savannah Bank v. Ajilo. It is only where the transaction has been perfected (Consent sought and obtained) will the transaction be complete.
Benita Ayo is a legal practitioner based in Lagos and be contacted on WhatsApp: 08063775768 or email: be*********@***oo.com.
By Prince Charles Dickson, PhD
A sheep was passing and saw a lion crying inside a cage, trapped and helpless. The lion begged the sheep to rescue him, promising not to kill or eat it. The sheep refused at first, knowing fully well that a lion does not become a vegetarian because of captivity. But after much persuasion, emotional blackmail, and the sheep’s own gullibility, it opened the cage.
Now the lion was very hungry, having stayed in the cage for days without food. It quickly pounced on the sheep and was about to kill and eat it, but the sheep reminded him of his promise.
They were still arguing when other animals came passing. They sought to know what had happened. Both the lion and the sheep narrated their sides of the story, but because of fear, convenience, and a desperate need to gain favour in the lion’s eyes, all the animals took sides with the lion, except the tortoise, who claimed not to understand the whole scenario.
The tortoise asked the lion to show them where exactly he was before the sheep rescued him. The lion pointed at the cage.
The tortoise asked again, “Were you inside or outside when the sheep arrived?”
The lion replied, “I was inside.”
The tortoise then said, “Okay, enter and let us see how difficult it could be inside, because I am not getting the whole scenario.”
The lion entered, and immediately, the tortoise locked the cage. The lion was trapped again.
That story is not just folklore. It is a national diagnosis.
Nigeria today is full of trapped lions, gullible sheep, frightened animals, and very few tortoises. We have many people with opinions, but few with discernment. Many with certificates, but few with comprehension. Many with titles, but few with thought. Many who can quote policy, scripture, law, and ideology, but cannot ask the simple question that prevents disaster: “Wait first, how did we get here?”
That question is the beginning of critical thinking. Sadly, it is becoming an endangered species.
The easiest and most attractive national pastime remains buck-passing, especially with the bunch of leaders we have, some of whom can hardly peel a banana or wash an already white handkerchief. Not many of us want to take responsibility for anything, from personal life to family life, from community life to national life. The blame is always on the system, as if the system descended from the sky and imposed itself on innocent citizens.
We do not need to create demons out of our leaders because, in too many instances, they have behaved like ready-made specimens of public demons. So, we hang our sins on them, sometimes appropriately, sometimes lazily. Unfortunately, their behaviour has made it easy for the critics to descend on them. They shout loudly, lie casually, perform empathy only when cameras are present, and govern as though the people are background noise in their private banquet.
But there is a deeper tragedy. The lion is not our only problem. The sheep, too, must be examined. The other animals must be questioned. Even the silence of the forest must stand trial.
This is where the Olodo Syndrome enters.
In Nigerian street language, “Olodo” is often used to describe a dull person, someone slow to understand, someone who fails where basic reasoning should have saved them. But in this essay, Olodo is not merely the person who did not go to school. No. Nigeria has produced a more sophisticated creature: the educated olodo. The certificated illiterate. The graduate who cannot reason beyond slogans. The public officer who mistakes grammar for intelligence. The citizen who forwards nonsense with confidence. The analyst who mistakes noise for insight. The leader who confuses movement with progress. The voter who sells tomorrow for rice today, then spends four years complaining that the pot is empty.
Olodo, therefore, is not the absence of schooling. It is the failure of judgment.
It is what happens when a nation rewards mediocrity and punishes thought. It is what happens when people who ask serious questions are labelled troublesome, while those who clap for madness are called loyal. It is what happens when dumb, crazy things move the needle, while wisdom is treated like an old man coughing in the corner. It is what happens when unintelligent people do not merely exist, but are celebrated, promoted, defended, and installed as gatekeepers over those who still dare to think.
This is Nigeria’s Olodo Uprising.
It is an uprising not of the poor against the rich, nor of the uneducated against the educated. It is an uprising of shallow thinking against depth. An assault on memory, logic, accountability, and consequence. It is the national habit of refusing to connect action to outcome. We open the cage, release the lion, and then begin a prayer meeting when the lion remembers its appetite.
We talk, write, and discuss the Nigerian myth with a sense of fatalism. “This is Nigeria,” we say, as if that phrase is both an explanation and an excuse. If everyone thought as much about justice and fairness, life would be better. I am a critic, yes, but I am also a critic’s critic. I remain an unrepentant believer that one of the ways to keep the government on its toes is to keep harping on its flaws so that it can improve. But criticism without self-examination becomes entertainment. It becomes pepper soup politics, the kind we enjoy at drinking joints, suya spots, WhatsApp groups, and television studios where every table has a parliament and every loud voice is mistaken for a constitution.
Often, I say I believe the things I write are important for our nation, as they are for other nations. But when it appears to me that Nigerians, especially those in authority, do not react to these issues as people in other lands do, I repeat them in new essays to remind old readers and recruit new ones to participate in the continuing dialogue.
Because repetition, sometimes, is not a lack of creativity. It is the burden of memory in a country addicted to forgetting.
Sadly, this is Nigeria, where nothing works, and no one cares. When it works, it is often because someone’s interest is about to be served or is already being served, not because the people’s interest has suddenly become sacred. We talk about our institutions despairingly. Our leaders do not watch network news except when their faces will appear at their sons’ or daughters’ weddings, birthdays, burials, thanksgiving services, or self-sponsored ceremonies of public praise. They do not need newspapers anymore because too many pages are already full of their lies, paid adverts, and noisy banters dressed as governance.
A country that destroys thinking will eventually be governed by instinct.
That is why the Olodo Syndrome is dangerous. It not only makes people ignorant. It makes them confidently ignorant. It gives stupidity a microphone and asks wisdom to apply for permission to speak. It converts public debate into shouting contests. It turns leadership recruitment into ethnic arithmetic, religious panic, stomach infrastructure, and emotional blackmail. It makes citizens defend their oppressors because the oppressor speaks their language, attends their church, worships in their mosque, comes from their zone, or once gave them transport money.
This is how the other animals sided with the lion.
Not because the lion was right. They knew he was wrong. But fear is a powerful editor of truth. Hunger is a wicked lawyer. Proximity to power is a dangerous intoxicant. In Nigeria, many people do not support injustice because they are confused. They support it because they are calculating. They are asking themselves, “What if the lion remembers me tomorrow? What if I need a favour? What if I condemn him now and he becomes minister, governor, chairman, commissioner, vice chancellor, senator, president?”
So, they betray the sheep.
Government bashing remains a national pastime, and every drinking joint and suya spot has a sitting parliament with an expert on every issue. But we forget that no matter the input, if the politicians and actors on our national scene have questionable lives both at personal and domestic levels, nothing will change. The best government policy cannot change the individual when the policies themselves are formulated on a bad foundation by people with warped thinking.
A corrupt mind cannot midwife a clean system.
When a witch proclaims her presence, and an invalid does not make away, he must have money for sacrifices at home. Nigeria has been warned too many times. We have seen the witch. We have heard the announcement. Yet we remain seated, arguing about who invited her, who offended her, which village she came from, and whether her witchcraft is constitutionally recognised.
This is not merely a leadership failure. It is civic laziness. It is moral cowardice. It is intellectual surrender.
The tortoise in the story represents the rare citizen who does not join the chorus. The one who pauses the noise. The one who asks for sequence, evidence, context, motive, and consequence. The tortoise is not the loudest animal. It is not the strongest. It does not roar. It does not bleat. It thinks.
That is what Nigeria needs now: more tortoises.
Not slow people, but thoughtful people. Not cowards hiding under shells, but citizens who understand that speed without thought is national self-harm. We need people who can ask leaders: Where were you before power? What did you promise? What have you done? Who benefits? Who pays? What happens tomorrow? We need teachers who teach children to question, not merely to cram. We need voters who examine character before currency. We need religious leaders who produce conscience, not crowds. We need journalists who investigate, not decorate. We need institutions that reward competence over loyalty, substance over noise, and courage over convenience.
Because the lion will always be hungry again.
That is the part Nigeria refuses to learn. Appeasing bad leadership does not end its appetite. Excusing mediocrity does not transform it into excellence. Rewarding foolishness does not make it wise. If we allow the lion to eat the sheep today because we are afraid, hungry, tribal, religiously sentimental, or politically invested, we have not solved the hunger problem. We have only postponed our own turn.
In amazement, the other animals asked the tortoise, “why” and the tortoise replied. “If we allow him to eat the sheep today, he will still go hungry tomorrow, and we don’t know what will be eaten tomorrow—May Nigeria win.
By Onah Ishioma Adaeze
As a beginner, choosing between stocks and forex for your investment goals in 2026 can feel overwhelming. Before investing your hard-earned money, it is important to understand how both markets work.
While both markets present investors with opportunities to grow their wealth, they also differ in terms of volatility, liquidity, market hours, and leverage. Stocks involve owning portions of a company, while forex has to do with trading a base currency against a quote currency.
In this article, we will be going through the basics of stocks and forex, pointing out their differences, and helping you decide which asset better suits your investment journey in 2026.
What is Stock Trading?
When it comes to stock trading, you are buying shares of a company, which makes you a shareholder of that company. As a shareholder, you may be entitled to receive dividends whenever the company decides to pay dividends.
As for those companies that do not pay dividends, there are other benefits a shareholder may enjoy, like being called upon to attend shareholder meetings and having voting rights on certain company matters.
On a global scale, over $100 trillion worth of shares are traded annually. Also, the rising popularity of AI companies and technological innovations continues to drive investor participation and market growth.
If you’re an investor looking to buy and hold capital assets, then stock trading is definitely for you, as it allows for short-term, medium-term and long-term investment goals.
When you buy shares of a company and the company performs well, your shares increase in value. Another benefit of stock trading is access to index funds and ETFs.
These funds consist of companies that are grouped under an index. They are carefully selected and monitored under the fund, sparing the investor the stress of actively tracking the fund.
They can be a way of building a long-term, diversified portfolio, and some of these funds may pay dividends.
What is Forex Trading?
Forex trading has to do with buying one currency and selling another. With a pair like USD/JPY, USD is the base currency being bought against JPY, which is the quote currency.
In order to execute a trade in the forex market, you have to analyse and make predictions based on price movement, as well as pay attention to what’s going on in the global news scene.
The forex market runs twenty-four hours every weekday, with over $9 trillion traded in the market every day. Being the largest financial market in the world, there is very high liquidity.
Forex trading involves buying one currency against another, making predictions based on price movements on the forex charts. Price moves based on the activities of large institutions like hedge funds, big banks, the government, etc.
The forex market runs 24 hours a day, every weekday, with global forex turnover reaching $9 trillion per day in the BIS 2025 survey. Being the largest financial market in the world, there is very high volatility and price fluctuations.
At the same time, there is high liquidity in the market, which means that currency pairs can easily be bought and sold without hassle. Highly liquid instruments that are traded regularly include: EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, and gold (XAU/USD).
As a retail trader, knowing when to enter and exit the market is important. As easy as it is to make profits from price fluctuations, it is also very easy to lose money if the market moves against you. This is why it is important to set stop losses and take profits. This helps manage your trading capital.
Major Differences Between Stocks and Forex
While investing in stocks and forex can yield great capital gains, there are lots of ways in which they differ.
As a beginner, stock trading provides opportunities for long-term investments, ensuring slow but consistent returns for wealth building. But if you are looking for an active, short-term style of investment, then forex trading is for you, as it allows you to enter and exit the market within a shorter time frame.
Which is Better in 2026?
Choosing an asset to invest in all boils down to personal preference. At the same time, if you are not averse to risk, nor opposed to asset diversification, then it’s okay to invest in both.
For beginner investors in 2026, stock trading is easier to understand and get into, especially because of mutual funds, index funds and ETFs. With those funds, you don’t have to be an expert to start investing. You can just buy a fund that suits your needs and hold it over a long period of time.
If you are an investor who enjoys technical analysis, highly volatile and liquid markets, as well as trading under short time frames, then forex trading is the right pick for you.
Conclusion
You do not need to put all your eggs in one basket. There are investors who invest in both stocks and forex simultaneously. When starting out, you can start investing in stocks while learning forex. Take calculated risks and do not invest above your means. Diversify your investments and remember, when starting out, you should prioritise acquiring knowledge over profits.
Onah Ishioma Adaeze is a finance writer who is passionate about simplifying complex concepts into easily digestible pieces. Her hobbies are reading and watching anime
By Owoloye Emmanuel
Every business starts with a problem. For us, that problem was hiding in plain sight.
Across organisations, we kept seeing HR professionals, payroll teams, and business leaders spend significant time navigating processes that should be simpler. Employee records sat across multiple systems, payroll processes required manual intervention, and routine workforce tasks often became more complicated than they needed to be.
As businesses grow, workforce operations naturally become more complex. Yet many organisations still rely on disconnected tools and workflows that create unnecessary friction for both employers and employees.
The consequence is more than operational inefficiency. HR teams spend valuable time managing systems instead of supporting people. Business leaders struggle to access timely workforce insights, while employees experience delays in processes that should be seamless.
These weren’t isolated challenges. They were recurring realities across workplaces, regardless of industry or size.
That observation led us to a simple question: what if workforce management could be easier?
What if HR, payroll, and workforce operations could work together within a single, connected experience?
That question became the foundation for 234 Solutions.
We are building 234 Solutions with a clear belief that workplace technology should reduce complexity, not add to it. Our goal is to help organisations spend less time navigating processes and more time focusing on productivity, growth, and people.
As we prepare for launch, our focus remains simple: building practical solutions for real workplace challenges and helping organisations create better experiences for the people who power them every day.
Owoloye Emmanuel is the founder of 234 Solutions
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn