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

A Nigerian lawyer has raised questions about the legal finality of a ₦400 million Abuja mansion gifted to TikTok personality Peller. Bolaji Oluwatosin, a dispute resolution and corporate commercial lawyer, stated that the keys, Power of Attorney, and allocation papers presented to Peller do not amount to a perfected legal transfer of the property.

“

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.

Real estate entrepreneur King Ochacho publicly gifted the mansion, named Palace 7 in Life Camp, Abuja, to Peller and his wife, Jarvis, during their wedding on August 1, 2026. Ochacho later described the mansion as "small money" and hinted at more gifts. He subsequently traveled to Lagos to hand over the keys, a Power of Attorney, and allocation papers, presented as the completion of the gift.

However, Oluwatosin clarified that these documents alone do not finalize the property 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 explained. He added that allocation papers serve as evidence of the property's history or the donor's root of title but do not prove a transfer of interest. "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 noted.

“

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.

Oluwatosin further pointed to the unique land status in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Citing Section 297(2) of the Constitution and Section 18 of the FCT Act, he stated that private holders in the FCT typically possess a right of occupancy, not an absolute freehold estate. He referenced a Supreme Court decision, Madu v. Madu (2008), to support this point. For a valid land gift, Oluwatosin stressed the need for a duly executed instrument that legally transfers Ochacho's interest, rather than documents merely evidencing allocation, possession, or intent to transfer.

“

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.