Month: April 2022

In Nigeria and around the world, it is not uncommon to find people entering into landlord and tenancy agreements. This is because shelter constitutes one of the tripartite composite needs of man. In fact, it is listed as a fundamental need in the pyramid of needs hierarchy by Abraham Maslow. 

In every tenancy relationship, there is a disequilibrium of power between the landlord and the tenant. This has made the tenant be regarded as a weaker party. After all, he’s the one trying to find a roof over his head. In a situation where a tenant’s rent has been determined by effluxion of time and he refuses to give up the premises, some landlords resort to self-help by forcefully ejecting him. 

Based on this, there is a need to protect the weaker party. And this is where the law comes in. The landlord and tenancy relationship is regulated by laws in Nigeria. This is evident in several tenancy laws of each state in Nigeria. While there are different laws in different states regulating landlord-tenant relationships, the procedures to be followed are basically the same. 

THE PROCEDURES FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION

1. Serve a Notice to Quit on the tenant: A notice to quit, as the name suggests, is a letter that is given to a tenant requesting him to vacate the premises of the landlord. The duration of a quit notice varies by the nature of the tenancy agreement. The formula used to determine the period of notice is:

• Tenancy at will or weekly tenancy- a week’s notice
• Monthly tenancy – a month’s notice
• Quarterly tenancy- a quarter’s notice (3 months)
• Yearly tenancy- a half year’s notice (6Months). However, a notice to quit would not be needed in case of a fixed tenancy. Odutola v Papersack Nig Ltd (2006) LPELR-2259(SC)

2. Notice of Owner’s Intention to Recover Premises: Some tenants are actually stubborn that even after the expiration, they won’t still leave the premises. So if the tenant is still in occupation at the expiration of the Notice to Quit, the law states that he should be served a-7 day notice of the owner’s intention to recover possession of the premises

3. Commencement of Legal Action: If the tenant is still in possession after the expiration of the notice of owner’s intention to recover premises, the law states that such an owner can commence legal action against such an erring tenant. 

From the foregoing, the law doesn’t allow the use of force in recovery of possession irrespective of the circumstances. In the celebrated case of Military Gov. Lagos State V. Ojukwu (1986) 1 All NLR 233, 243, the Supreme Court per Obaseki, J.S.C., held thus: “In the area where rule of law operates, the rule of self-help by force is abandoned. Nigeria being one of the countries in the world, even in the third world, which proclaims loudly to follow the rule of law, there is no room for the rule of self-help by force to operate… If the government of Lagos State wants possession from Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu, it should apply for an order of possession from the competent Court of law….”

These aforementioned procedures are clear and must be complied with. The law is that when a particular way/method of doing a thing and unless such a law is altered or amended by a legitimate authority, then whatever is done in contravention of those provisions amounts to a nullity and of no effect whatsoever. MobilProducing Nig. Unltd. v. Johnson (2018) 14 NWLR(Pt.1639) 329.

CONSEQUENCES FOR A DISOBEDIENT LANDLORD?

In Akinkugbe v. Ewulum Holdings Nigeria Ltd. & Anor (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 375, the Court held that a landlord who resorts to self-help to recover property leased by him runs afoul of the law and is liable in damages.” Law is really interesting. Imagine a landlord going from “no be my house, send him out’ to paying of damages.😲 See also Ndieli & Anor v Eze (2016) LPELR-42122(CA), Derive & Anor v Abubakar (2021)  LPELR-56154(CA) where the landlord in each case had to pay heavy damages.

THE FATE OF A WELL-INFORMED LANDLORD ?

What would be the fate of a tenant whose landlord didn’t resort to the use of self-help in evicting him? 

The answer would be the basis of our next week’s analysis. Thank you for reading. See you next week. 

The law is that every person has a right to the protection of his good name, reputation, and the estimation in which he stands in society. Therefore, whoever publishes anything injurious to that good name or reputation commits the tort of defamation. 

Defamation, as a tort, whether as libel or slander, consists of the publication to a third person or persons of any false word or matter which tend to lower the person defamed in the estimation of(a) right-thinking members of society generally. 

Moving on, while the bulk of cases that arise in defamation cases pertain to natural persons and juristic personalities, the legal question then becomes, can an individual who died in the course of his defamation suit still be entitled to monetary compensation? 

The rule of law that governs this scenario is aptly captured by the Latin maxim: actio personalis moritur cum persona which means that a personal action dies with the person. In other words, the rule simply postulates that dead men are no longer legal persons in the eyes of the Law as they have laid down their legal personality at death.

This generally applies where the reliefs claimed by a deceased Claimant are personal to him. In such a circumstance the action cannot survive the deceased claimant who will solely and personally be the beneficiary.

In Abdulmumini v Mela (2017) LPELR-CA/J/18/2012,  the deceased father of the Respondent, Alhaji Dahiru Mela, as plaintiff brought an action against the defendant that the words uttered by the latter, which was aired through Radio Gombe, was defamatory and has lowered the standing of the Plaintiff in the society he lives. He also claimed the sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) general damages for defamation of character and an additional sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) as exemplary damages.

At the conclusion of the suit, the trial court held that the defendant was liable and granted the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand for both the General and Exemplary damages. Irked by the said judgment, the appellant appealed the case. While this appeal was pending, the original respondent, Alhaji Dahiru Mela died and he was substituted with his daughter the incumbent Respondent, Aishatu Dahiru Mela, by the order of this Court made way back on 9th November, 2015.

Delivering the judgment, the court held that: “with the demise of the original respondent, the father of the present Respondent, the appeal is a nonstarter and it abates. The appeal is accordingly dismissed“.

However, it is pertinent that a cause of action will survive a deceased plaintiff when the action is not personal as evident in various statutes of each state. See Section 13(1) of the Administration of Estates Edict, Cap. 2, Vol. 1, Laws of the Bauchi State of Nigeria, 1991, applicable in Gombe State.

Personal actions have been listed to include only the following:- (a) Defamation. (b) Seduction. (c) Inducing one spouse to leave or remain apart from the other. (d) Claims for damages on the ground of adultery. 

Hence in Ifejika v Oputa (2001) LPELR-CA/E/129/2000, the defendant-appellant (Ifejika) drilled a borehole in his premises which caused vibration and noise to the plaintiff-respondent. While the case was still on, the nonagenarian plaintiff died and was substituted by her daughter. The Court held nuisance was not a personal action, that the action didn’t abate with the death of the plaintiff and that the respondent was properly substituted in place of her mother.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.

It is a fundamental principle of law that there cannot be a charge for an offence not named in a written law. This principle received a statutory backing in section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) which states thus: subject as otherwise provided by this Constitution, a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty, therefore, is prescribed in a written law: and in this section, a written law refers to an Act of the National Assembly or a law of a State any subsidiary legislation or instrument under the provisions of a law.”

In EFCC v Thomas (2018) LPELR-CA/L/1298/2017, the Appellant received the sum of $2,198,900.00 cash found in the possession of one Ibiteye John Bamidele from the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency with a covering letter alleging that the said man has arrested at the local wing of the Murtala Mohammed Airport while attempting to board a flight to Abuja.

On the commencement of investigations, the Respondent appeared to claim the money and said he gave the money to John Bamidele to take the same to Abuja. He made a statement and was granted administrative bail and asked to deposit his international passport. He initially reported to the Appellant’s Abuja office. Several days later, the Respondent filed an application before the Federal High Court seeking relief which range from a breach of fundamental human rights to injunctions and claim for damages.

The question then becomes, is there any legal provision against the keeping of money be it local or foreign currency in the house, on your person, and outside the bank? answering this question, the Court held that: The act of keeping money at home or other places of choice is not a named offence in any law in this country. The Anti-Money Laundering Act does not have such provision and the E.F.C.C. Act also has nothing in that direction. Furthermore, there is also no known offence for travelling with money legitimately earned within the country. The requirement of declaring sums beyond a threshold is only when you are travelling outside the country. Travelling from Lagos to Abuja is still within the territorial jurisdiction of the country known as Nigeria.

The court further went to distinguish this case from DAUDU v. F.R.N. (2018) LPELR-43637 (SC) where it held that unlike the situation in the case of DAUDU v. F.R.N where the accused person failed to give a satisfactory account of the monies which were lodged in his account during his tenure as a local government chairman, here, the Respondent was able to prove the sources of the money found in the possession of one Ibiteye John Bamidele and his ownership of same. The Appellant failed to put forward a clear case against the Respondent and was merely fishing for the twig to hang on.

In conclusion, the import of this principle is that an individual cannot be arrested by the EFCC or other law enforcement agencies for keeping billions of local or foreign currency in your house provided that the money is not illegitimately obtained.

Thank you for reading. See you next week