CORAM
LEWIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
C.A. SOBAMOWO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff claimed in the trial Court that he was entitled to possession of a room which the Defendant forced open and entered into possession without the authority of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded from the defendant possession of the said room but the defendant refused to give up possession.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that if a person comes within the definition of tenant then he is entitled to the statutory protection provided for in the Act and it makes no difference whether the landlord recognises him as such or not. It is still beholden on the landlord to give that person as a statutory tenant the required notice under the Act.
ISSUES
Whether the defendant was “occupying” the premises within the meaning of the definition of `tenant in section 2 of the Recovery of Premises Act (Cap. 176 of the Laws of Federation of Nigeria and Lagos 1958)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ESTABLISHMENT OF OCCUPATION OF PREMISES”
There must be actual lawful user of the premises as such and not merely the right to use objects on the premises. Thus the right to go into the property to operate equipment without anything more would not establish the necessary possession.” Per LEWIS, JSC
ESTABLISHMENT OF OCCUPATION OF PREMISES
“To establish that the defendant was occupying the premises within the meaning of `tenant in section 2 of the Recovery of Premises Act one must establish actual use, which is lawful, of the premises so as to have possession of the premises coupled with such degree of permanence as would amount to occupation.” Per LEWIS, JSC
CASES CITED
Dawodu v. ljale [1946] 12 WA.C.A 12
Balogun v. U.A.C. (1958) N.N.L.R. 77
Akinoshe v. Enigbokan [1955] 21 N.L.R. 88
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Recovery of Premises Act (Cap. 176 of the Laws of Federation of Nigeria)