Lawyer questions legal transfer of Ochacho’s ₦400m mansion to Peller 

A lawyer, Bolaji Oluwatosin, has said the keys, Power of Attorney and allocation papers presented to TikTok star, Peller, over a ₦400 million Abuja mansion do not amount to a perfected legal transfer of the property.

Oluwatosin, a dispute resolution and corporate commercial lawyer, made this known in a statement made available to PUNCH Online on Saturday, examining the wedding gift from real estate entrepreneur, King Ochacho.

Ochacho publicly gifted the mansion, named Palace 7 and located in Life Camp, Abuja, to Peller and his wife, Jarvis, during their wedding in Lagos on August 1, 2026.

Presenting the gift amid applause from guests, he said, “On behalf of my children, I am presenting a brand new house for you worth ₦400 million in Abuja. Congratulations, Peller.”

Two days after the wedding, Ochacho, during a TikTok livestream, described the mansion as “small money,” saying it was insignificant to him and his family and hinting that it would not be the biggest gift Peller would receive from him.

On Friday, August 7, he travelled to Lagos to hand over the keys, a Power of Attorney and allocation papers relating to the property, in what was presented as completion of the gift.

But Oluwatosin said the presentation of those documents does not by itself amount to a perfected legal transfer.

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 added that the allocation papers only speak to the property’s history rather than proof of 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, noting also that “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.”

Oluwatosin raised the peculiar status of land in the FCT, citing Section 297(2) of the Constitution and Section 18 of the FCT Act.

“What a private holder ordinarily possesses and can seek to transfer, is therefore a right of occupancy rather than an absolute freehold estate,” he said, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Madu v. Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) 296.

On the requirements for a valid gift of land, he said, “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 cited the Court of Appeal’s decision in Omoregie v. Bienose (2024) LPELR-58327 (CA), and the Supreme Court’s earlier position in Anyaegbunam v. Osaka (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 386.

He also referred to Sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act, which require consent before a holder of a statutory right of occupancy can alienate that right, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Savannah Bank (Nigeria) Ltd v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305.

He, however, cautioned, “That principle should not, however, be applied mechanically to every FCT transaction without first identifying the precise source of the donor’s interest.”

Oluwatosin said it would be premature to draw a conclusion either way until Ochacho’s title documents are examined.

“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,” he said.