Lawyer Bolaji Oluwatosin said the keys, Power of Attorney, and allocation papers handed to TikTok personality Peller over a 400 million naira Abuja mansion do not by themselves constitute a perfected legal transfer of the property, in a statement examining the widely publicized wedding gift.

Oluwatosin, a dispute resolution and corporate commercial lawyer, made the assessment in a statement made available to The Eastern Updates on Saturday, addressing the gift real estate entrepreneur King Ochacho presented to Peller and his wife, Jarvis, during their wedding in Lagos on August 1.

Ochacho publicly gifted the mansion, named Palace 7 and located in Life Camp, Abuja, before applauding wedding guests. “On behalf of my children, I am presenting a brand new house for you worth ₦400 million in Abuja. Congratulations, Peller,” he said at the time. Two days later, during a TikTok livestream, Ochacho described the mansion as “small money,” calling it insignificant to his family and suggesting it would not be the largest gift Peller would eventually receive from him.

On August 7, Ochacho traveled to Lagos to hand over the keys, a Power of Attorney, and allocation papers relating to the property, a step presented publicly as completing the gift.

Oluwatosin disputed that framing on legal grounds, breaking down each document’s actual function. “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,” he said. He said allocation papers similarly fall short of proving a completed transfer. “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,” he said, adding that the 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.”

Read Also: The Bloodline Execution — Part 25

Oluwatosin flagged the distinct legal status of land within the Federal Capital Territory, citing Section 297(2) of the Constitution and Section 18 of the FCT Act. He said what a private landholder in the FCT ordinarily possesses, and could transfer, is a right of occupancy rather than an absolute freehold estate, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Madu v. Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) 296.

On what would actually constitute a valid land gift, Oluwatosin said the substance of the documents matters more than their labels. “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,” he said, citing the Court of Appeal’s decision in Omoregie v. Bienose (2024) LPELR-58327 (CA) and the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Anyaegbunam v. Osaka (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 386.

He also pointed to Sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act, which require governor’s consent before a holder of a statutory right of occupancy can transfer that right, citing Savannah Bank (Nigeria) Ltd v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305. He cautioned, however, against applying that consent requirement automatically to every FCT transaction without first establishing the specific legal source of the donor’s interest in the property.

Read Also: The Bloodline Execution — Part 24

Oluwatosin declined to draw a firm conclusion on Peller and Jarvis’s current legal standing regarding the mansion, saying that would require examining Ochacho’s underlying title documents. “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,” he said. “Public celebration may mark the making of a gift; it does not, by itself, dispense with the law governing the transfer of land,” he added.

The FCT’s land tenure system, distinct from freehold arrangements common in many other jurisdictions, requires that transfers of statutory rights of occupancy go through documented consent and registration processes administered by the FCT Administration, a structure that has historically generated disputes in Abuja real estate transactions where possession or informal documentation preceded full legal perfection of title.

The Eastern Updates