Why must the seven landlords who were the plaintiffs in the case need the occupation of the single ground floor flat before they can recover possession of the flat. If that is the law, it is a law devoid of human face, human reason and common sense. I shall not project such a law.
– Ubaezonu JCA. Coker v. Adetayo (1992)
SHARE ON
Be that as it may, there are 3 main types of tenancy, tenancy at will, periodic tenancy and fixed term (or term certain). – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JCA. Bocas v. Wemabod (2016)
Isaac v. Hotel de Paris Limited (1960) 1 ALL E.R. 348, it was held that the intention of the parties and the conduct of the parties must be the deciding factor whether a tenancy has been created or the relationship was merely that of a licensor and licensee even though there was exclusive possession by the appellant and the acceptance of the amount of the rent by the respondent company.
Firstly, the submission that the Nigeria Police Force is an integral part of ‘the Federal Executive’ with no capacity to own or possess land independently of the Federal Government is unnecessary. But more importantly, the assumption ignores the fact that the Nigeria Police Force is a creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in much the same way as other organs of the Federal Government, such as the legislature, executive the judiciary and the armed forces of the federation, each of which, though an arm of the Government of the Federation, nonetheless, has an independent capacity and rights that do not depend on the executive arm, including the right to possess land. See sections 4 and 43; 5 and 122; 6 and part I of chapter VII; sections 194 and 197 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.
– Olagunju JCA. Ofodile v. COP (2000)
This is yet another misconception of the legal issue raised in the case. Once a Plaintiff claims that a Defendant is his customary tenant on the land in dispute and claims relief based thereon, he admits unequivocally that the Defendant is in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. It would be a contradiction in terms therefore for a Plaintiff whose claim is founded on customary tenancy to also assert that he is in exclusive possession.
— F.F. Tabai JSC. Tijani Dada v Jacob Bankole (2008) – S.C. 40/2003
Now before proceeding to analyse the evidence, let me restate the legal consequences on the issue of burden of proof when a claim is founded on customary tenancy. It is settled principle of law that a claim which seeks a declaration that the Defendants are customary tenants of the plaintiff and other consequential reliefs emanating there from postulates that the Defendants are in exclusive possession of the land in dispute, and by the operation of Section 146 of the Evidence Act Cap. E14 of the Laws of the Federation, there is presumption that the Defendants in such exclusive possession are the owners of the land in dispute until the contrary is proved to rebut that presumption. The only way to rebut the presumption is by strict proof of the alleged customary tenancy. That is the danger of a plea founded on the allegation of customary tenancy.
— F.F. Tabai JSC. Tijani Dada v Jacob Bankole (2008) – S.C. 40/2003
Hence when the initial occupation of premises is lawful, the occupier, even if holding over becomes a protected tenant qua the landlord. This is a status arising from a statute creating the tenancy. The difficulty arises when the contractual tenant who enters into possession lawfully continues at the expiration of the contract and against the wish of the owner of the premises without any contract. This is the situation described as tenant-at-will at common law. Under the 1976 Rent Edict, as soon as the contractual tenancy expires, the tenant, who becomes so by operation of law becomes a statutory tenant. He occupies the property as a tenant, and enjoys the restrictions against recovery imposed by the Edict. He enjoys protection and security of tenure and is at par with the contractual tenant. Although the tenant is protected from eviction except in accordance with the law, he is liable to pay for his occupation and use of the property.
– Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Petroleum v. Owodunni (1991)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry