A lawyer has questioned whether TikTok personality Peller and his wife, Jarvis, have obtained a perfected legal interest in the ₦400 million Abuja mansion publicly gifted to them by real estate entrepreneur King Ochacho.
Dispute resolution and corporate commercial lawyer Bolaji Oluwatosin raised the issue after Ochacho handed over keys, a Power of Attorney and allocation papers relating to the property to the couple.
The mansion, identified as Palace 7 in Life Camp, Abuja, was presented as a wedding gift during Peller and Jarvis’ ceremony in Lagos on August 1, 2026.
Ochacho told wedding guests that he was presenting the couple with a new Abuja house worth ₦400 million.
The property subsequently became the subject of renewed online discussion after Ochacho travelled to Lagos on Friday to hand over documents and the keys to Peller.
But Oluwatosin said the presentation should not automatically be interpreted as proof that legal title has been transferred.
“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 similarly questioned the legal effect of the allocation papers and keys.
According to him, allocation documents can provide evidence about the history or root of title, while possession of keys demonstrates delivery or control of the property but does not, standing alone, establish legal ownership.
The distinction is particularly significant because the property is located within the Federal Capital Territory.
Section 297(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides that ownership of lands in the FCT is vested in the Federal Government. Nigerian courts have also repeatedly recognised the special status of land in Abuja and the role of the appropriate federal authorities in granting statutory rights of occupancy.
Oluwatosin also drew attention to the Land Use Act, particularly Sections 22 and 26, which regulate alienation of statutory rights of occupancy and provide consequences for transactions that do not comply with the Act.
He cited the Supreme Court decision in Savannah Bank (Nigeria) Ltd v. Ajilo as part of his legal analysis of consent requirements in land transactions.
However, the lawyer cautioned against reaching a definitive conclusion without seeing the actual documents.
“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.
That qualification is important because describing a document as a “Power of Attorney” does not, by itself, establish the complete legal effect of the transaction. The contents of the document, the nature of Ochacho’s interest in the property and compliance with applicable FCT land requirements would have to be examined.
Oluwatosin therefore said it would be premature to declare either that Peller and Jarvis had no legal interest in the property or that they had already obtained perfected legal title.
“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.
The development has shifted attention from the eye-catching ₦400 million wedding gift to a more technical question: what exactly did Ochacho transfer to the couple, and have all the legal requirements for perfecting that interest been met?
