By Bolaji Oluwatosin, Esq.
At the wedding of content creators Peller and Jarvis, real estate entrepreneur King Ochacho (Mohamed Adah) publicly presented an Abuja mansion named Palace 7 within Life Camp, FCT, reportedly worth ₦400 million, as a wedding gift; on Friday, 7 August 2026, he handed over to Peller in Lagos the keys, a Power of Attorney and allocation papers relating to the property, in what was presented as completion of the gift.
The question that begs for an answer is that, under the law, does the presentation of keys, power of Attorney and allocation document mean Peller and Jarvis have acquired a valid, perfected legal interest in the property? That is the question this publication seeks to examine.
There is a difference between the intention to make a gift, the delivery of possession and documents and the completion of a legal transfer of an interest in land; the first two are plain from what happened at the wedding and the presentation of keys in Lagos, while the third depends on the nature of Ochacho’s own title, the legal character of the documents delivered and compliance with the requirements applicable to the property.
Land in the Federal Capital Territory occupies a peculiar position; section 297(2) of the Constitution vests ownership of all FCT land in the Federal Government and section 18 of the FCT Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Madu v. Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) 296, places the power to grant statutory rights of occupancy over FCT land in the Minister of the FCT; what a private holder ordinarily possesses and can seek to transfer, is therefore a right of occupancy rather than an absolute freehold estate. The question is not simply whether Peller received the keys but what interest Ochacho held, what he purported to transfer and whether the requirements for that transfer have been satisfied.
The documents deserve scrutiny on their own terms and this is why some Nigerians have sparked off the conversations as touching on why a Power of Attorney would be presented to Peller. A Power of Attorney is, in its ordinary legal character, an authority to act on another’s behalf; its title does not by itself establish that a proprietary interest has been transferred. Allocation papers may be significant evidence of the property’s history or the donor’s root of title, but they do not, without more, establish that his interest has been transferred to someone else; and keys establish delivery of possession, not title, since possession of land does not, by itself, make one the holder of the legal interest in it, though an instrument executed alongside possession may still create rights enforceable in equity, depending on the documents, the conduct of the parties and the applicable law.
The law of gifts adds another layer; a gift inter vivos requires clear intention to give and acceptance by the donee. The Court of Appeal, in Omoregie v. Bienose (2024) LPELR-58327 (CA), held that where a gift of land is made under received English law, a deed of gift is the appropriate instrument, while customary gifts may be proved according to applicable customary law; this is a principle traceable to the Supreme Court’s treatment of gifts inter vivos in Anyaegbunam v. Osaka (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 386.
The requirement is one of substance, not a particular heading; if what was handed to Peller includes a duly executed instrument that legally transfers Ochacho’s interest, the position is considerably stronger, whereas if the documents merely evidence allocation, possession, or an intention to transfer, further steps may still be needed.
Statutory consent requirements also matter. Under sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act, a holder of a statutory right of occupancy generally cannot alienate that right without the appropriate consent and a transaction caught by section 26 and done contrary to the Act is null and void; this is a principle the Supreme Court applied strictly in Savannah Bank (Nigeria) Ltd v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305. That principle should not, however, be applied mechanically to every FCT transaction without first identifying the precise source of the donor’s interest; what is clear is that the Minister of the FCT holds authority over the grant and administration of rights of occupancy there, and the donor’s actual title documents must be examined before concluding what consent, if any, is required.
The issue, in short, is not whether Ochacho genuinely intended the gift, which appears difficult to dispute on the facts publicly available; rather, the issue is whether that intention has been translated into a legally effective transfer. That distinction protects both sides, for it protects the donor by making clear precisely what has passed, and it protects the donees by making their interest less vulnerable to competing claims or later disputes when the property is sold, mortgaged or transmitted.
For a ₦400 million property, this is not a technical quibble; a mansion can be handed over in minutes, while the legal title to it may take considerably longer to establish. The public announcement and the Lagos handover are powerful evidence that a gift was intended and accepted, but they are not necessarily the final word on whether a perfected legal interest has passed, since that depends on the donor’s title, the instrument used, the terms of the relevant allocation documents and compliance with every requirement governing alienation and perfection of the interest.
Until those documents are examined, it would be premature to say Peller and Jarvis have no legal interest in the property; it would be equally premature to say that the keys, Power of Attorney and allocation papers, without more, have vested a perfected legal title in them. Public celebration may mark the making of a gift; it does not, by itself, dispense with the law governing the transfer of land.
Bolaji Oluwatosin is a dispute resolution and corporate commercial lawyer at Lalere Legal Practitioners, with a practice spanning commercial litigation, corporate law, dispute resolution and legal advisory.
Email: lalerelegalpractitioners@gmail.com
Phone: +234 703 138 0894
In this article