Academic literature on the topic 'Land title'

There is strong evidence that most land transactions in Nigerian urban areas take place in the private or informal land market and remain untitled. Only a small percentage of land transactions take place through government allocation even though it ensures greater tenure security. This study examines gender distribution in the allocation of government lands in Akure, Nigeria and the rate of land title registration in the private land market using secondary data of land allocation and Certificate of Occupancy for a period of 10 years (2009-2018) from the Lands Department of the Ministry of Works, Land and Housing, Akure. Close-ended questionnaires were administered to the officials in charge of the records and the Director of the Department was interviewed. Primary data were analysed using weighted mean scores, while secondary data were analysed using ratio and difference measures, trend analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Findings show that the number of registered land titles in private land was lower than the number of government land allocations even though more transactions took place in the private land market. The time taken to process land title registration and lack of awareness were ranked highest among factors affecting land title registration. Although there were no gender specific requirements in the process of land allocation and title registration, stereotypes appear to play a role in land distribution decisions and title registration across the study area. A risk ratio of as high as three to one (males to females) in land allocation and 10 to one in land title registration was observed in some years. The paper recommends educating people, especially women, about the importance of land titling and accessing government land, which is far more secure than private land. Recommendations are also made towards a better land registration process in the study area.

Professor Antony Allott's first studies of law in Africa were of Ghanaian land law. From an early date he has discussed issues of land title registration in Africa. It is therefore fitting in this celebratory number to note that Ghana, after many years of debate and delays, recently enacted a statute providing for the registration of interests in land throughout the country. It is planned that the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 152) (hereafter “the Law”) will be brought into operation in stages as areas are successively designated “registration districts”. It is expected to begin with Accra “and designated agricultural areas”, according to the Memorandum to the Law. When an area is so designated, the Chief Registrar of Lands will be obliged forthwith to call upon all persons claiming interests in land therein to present their claims. Those proven, after adjudication if necessary, will be registered, and the register will be conclusive. All subsequent changes in the holding of interests are to be effectuated through changes in the register. The Land Title Registration Regulations, 1986 (L.I. 1341) have already been made to provide in more detail for the procedures to be followed.This contribution attempts to provide a brief, critical summary of the central features of the Law. It considers these in the context of the historical development of Ghanaian land law, and contrasts them with features of certain other schemes which have been implemented or proposed.

The judgement of the High Court of Australia in 1992 in Mabo v. Queensland has had a major impact on land law in Australia.The Native Titles Act, 1993, is the first of what will be many steps in a long, complex legislative program to integrate 'native title', into Australia's land law.Those drafting the Native Title Act seemed to have concentrated on dealing with 'native title' issues in isolation and to have ignored or put to one side the need for it to mesh with other aspects of land law. This has created uncertainty for many users of land and will require review.Although the contrary was intended, the Act creates, in practical terms, significant uncertainty for renewal of existing oil and gas exploration and production titles. It also has implications for applicants for new titles and in due course for farmouts and assignments.Eventually additional legislation will be required to clarify the relationship of native title with the other areas of land law.

Purpose The registration of land titles is an important component of title documentation and certification process that is influenced by a variety of factors. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to examine factors influencing land title registration practice in Osun State, Nigeria. Design/methodology/approach Data used for this paper were collected from 520 land title registration applicants, representing 48.10 per cent of the total number of applicants for land title/property rights registration in Osun State, Southwestern Nigeria, using systematic random sampling technique, with sampling interval k = 5. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques, such as frequency distribution and percentages, relative importance index (RII) and factor analysis. Findings The findings revealed that factors such as high cost of title documentation and corrupt practices of land registry staff had significant influence on land title/property rights registration process, while factors such as suitability of organizational structure and personnel competence/low morale had less influence on land title registration in the study area. Practical implications The findings of this paper suggest the inadequacies inherent in the land title registration process in the study area which has significant implications for land titling registration process in Osun State, the entire Nigerian state and other emerging African economies. Originality/value The paper is one of the few papers that analyzed the factors influencing land title registration from the perspective of end-users in an emerging African economy like Nigeria.

Purpose The land sector in Ghana, particularly skin lands acquisition and title registration are fraught with several issues including unreliable record-keeping systems and land encroachments. The paper explores the potential of blockchain application in skin lands acquisition and title registration in Ghana with the aim of developing a blockchain-enabled framework for land acquisition. The purpose of this paper is to use the framework as a tool towards solving some of the loopholes in the process that leads to numerous issues bedeviling the current system. Design/methodology/approach The paper adopts a systematic literature review approach fused with informal discussions with key informants and leverages on the researchers’ own experiences to conceptualize blockchain application in skin lands acquisition in Ghana. Findings Problems bedeviling skin lands acquisition and title registration emanated from the issuance of allocation notes, payment of kola money and use of a physical ledger to document land transactions. As a result, the developed framework was designed to respond to these issues and deal with the problems. As the proposed blockchain framework would be a public register, it was argued that information on all transactions on a specific parcel of land could be available to the public in real-time. This enhances transparency and possibly resolves the issue of encroachments and indeterminate land boundaries because stakeholders can determine rightful owners of land parcels before initiating transactions. Practical implications Practically, blockchain technology has the potential to deal with the numerous issues affecting the smooth operation of skin lands acquisition and title registration in Ghana. Once the enumerated issues are resolved, there will be certainty of title to and ownership of land and property to drive investments because lenders could more easily ascertain owners of land parcels that could be used as collateral for securing loans. Similarly, property developers and land purchasers could easily identify rightful owners for land transactions. The government would be able to identify owners for land and property taxation. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature on blockchain and application to land acquisition and title registration with a focus on a specific customary land ownership system.

In this article the author, whose experience in cross-cultural communication as a missionary was used by a group of Australian Aboriginal people among whom he had worked to interpret their demand for title to their traditional land, outlines aspects of the traditional life of the Pitjantjatjara people and their conception of their relation to the land. Edwards traces the history of the dispossession of the land following European settlement, and the history of negotiations which led to the recognition of their title to the land under South Australian legislation. He comments on the role of the churches in these events and reflects on a Christian approach to indigenous land rights, noting that churches in other lands, in their mission work, are also involved with indigenous peoples in struggles to achieve just recognition to title for their land.

This paper focusses on onshore exploration and production because the right to negotiate does not apply offshore. However, the Native Title Act can be relevant to offshore oil and gas explorers and producers. First, where their area of interest includes an island within the jurisdiction of Western Australia. Secondly, in respect of land required for the facilities to treat petroleum piped ashore.Under the original Native Title Act the right to negotiate proved unworkable, the expedited procedure failed to facilitate the grant of exploration titles and titles granted after 1 January 1994 were probably invalid.The paper examines the innovations introduced by the amended Native Title Act to consider whether it will be more 'workable' for petroleum explorers and producers. It examines some of categories of future acts in respect of which the right to negotiate does not apply (specifically indigenous land use agreements, renewals and extensions of titles, procedures for infrastructure titles, reserve land, water resources, low impact future acts, approved exploration etc acts and the expedited procedure).Other innovations include the new registration test for native title claims, the validation of pre-Wik titles, the amended right to negotiate procedure, the State implementation of the right of negotiate procedure and the objection and adjudication procedure for grants on pastoral land.The response of each state and territory parliament to the amended Act is considered, as is the Federal Court decision in the Miriuwung Gajerrong land claim (particularly the finding that native title includes resources, questioning whether these resources extend to petroleum).The paper observes that the full impact of the new Act cannot be determined until the states and territories have passed complementary legislation and it is all in operation. However, the paper's preliminary conclusion is that it does not provide a workable framework for the interaction between petroleum companies and native title claimants.The writer's view is that the right to negotiate procedure is unworkable if relied upon to obtain the grant of a title. If a proponent wishes to develop a project in any commercially acceptable timeframe, it will have to negotiate an agreement with native title claimants. The paper's conclusion is that a negotiated agreement is the only way to cope with native title issues.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, Aboriginal title is a property right, albeit of a distinctive kind. Most significantly, the right is subject to an inherent limit: title lands cannot be used in a way that deprives present and future generations of the right to use the land. Aboriginal title is also encumbered by a restraint on alienation, and has its source in Aboriginal legal systems that predate and survive the assertion of Crown sovereignty. In this paper, we argue that these features of Aboriginal title are not burdensome judicial innovations on a property right, but are instead the essential contours of a sovereign right. That is, the Court’s own description of Aboriginal title does not comport with sound theoretical understandings of a property right. Aboriginal title is much more akin to a right of sovereignty—the right to make laws about the use of a territory. Aboriginal title is the right of law-making jurisdiction over the title lands. The existing literature, while edging towards the view that Aboriginal title is a sovereign right, has lacked the unifying theoretical basis needed to decisively dispatch the Court’s property paradigm. In particular, all extant accounts find the inherent limit inexplicable. The account in this article theorizes and explains the inherent limit, as well as all of the sui generis elements of Aboriginal title, and shows their interconnectedness. Our view additionally answers a number of questions that the Court’s property paradigm does not, including: (1) what laws primarily govern title lands; (2) who has standing to question whether any particular use of title land violates the inherent limit; (3) what is the status of private land interests that overlap with Aboriginal title lands; and (4) how should the doctrine of Aboriginal title be updated in light of jurisprudential developments emphasizing that Indigenous peoples never ceded their sovereignty?