Legalpedia Citation: (2023-12) Legalpedia 14738 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Calabar

Wed Dec 13, 2023

Suit Number: CA/C/346/2019

CORAM

Hamma Akawu Barka Justice, Court of Appeal

Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice, Court of Appeal

Peter Chudi Obiora Justice, Court of Appeal

PARTIES

EVANG. BLESSING KINGSLEY IBEH (Formerly Evang. Blessing Joshua Okokon)

APPELLANTS

ANIETIE OKON A. NKPOBUTT

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION, PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING

SUMMARY OF FACTS

​The appellant is a tenant at No. 50 Aka Itiam Road, Uyo. The original landlord of the appellant was the father of the respondent. The respondent stated that his father long before he died handed over the property to him to manage and that the appellant and other tenants in the premises paid rent to him. According to the appellant, she rented the premises in 1999 and paid rent to Okon Asuquo Nkpobutt and the property was later shared amongst the siblings of Okon Asuquo Nkpobutt and the appellant in her evidence at the Rent Control Court claimed that she had three landlords as a result of the sharing of the property.

The respondent sued the appellant at the Rent Control Court for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit. The respondent had closed his case after calling four witnesses and the appellant was leading her defence when her counsel raised a preliminary objection that the respondent did not have the locus standi to bring the suit. The Rent Control Court ruled on the objection upholding the capacity of the respondent to bring the suit and the appellant appealed against the decision of the Rent Control Court to the High Court. The High Court also affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court, thereby dismissing the appeal. The appellant has now further appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the Respondent had the legal authority and the locus standi to institute Suit No. RC/U/221/2013 against the Appellant?
2. Whether the claim of the Respondent herein who is the plaintiff in RC/U/221/2013 is governed and regulated by both the Landlord and Tenants Law Cap. 71 Vol. 4 Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000 and the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Law Cap. 110 Vol. 5 Laws of Akwa Ibom State?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI AND ITS IMPLICATIONS IN A MATTER

Going by the plethora and avalanche of judicial authorities, locus standi is the legal capacity to institute an action in a Court of Law. The legal concept of standing or locus standi is predicated on the assumption that no Court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the Applicant has a remote, hypothetical, or no interest. To this extent locus standi focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint laid before the Court to show that he has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit. See Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) LPELR-1510(SC) 74-75, G-A; INEC v. Ogbadibo LGC (2014) LPELR 22640 (CA) 24-25, F-C; B. B. Apugo & Sons Ltd v. OHMB (2016) LPELR-40598(SC); Senator Adesanya v. The President of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC p.112 and Thomas & Ors v. Olufosoye (1986) LPELR-3237(SC). – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

 

RENTS – WHETHER RENTS PAYABLE TO A LANDLORD SHALL BE DEEMED PAYABLE TO HIM AFTER HIS DEATH UNDER THE LANDLORD AND TENANTS LAW, CAP. 71 VOL. 4, LAWS OF AKWA IBOM STATE – GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

But what did the Landlord and Tenant Law of Akwa Ibom say about rents due to a deceased landlord? In this regard, Section 72(1) of the Landlord and Tenants Law, Cap. 71 Vol. 4, Laws of Akwa Ibom State comes handy. The law provides thus:

“Rent payable to a landlord shall be deemed to be payable to him and after his death, the owner of the reversion on the property concerned and the rent payable by a tenant shall be deemed to be payable by him and after his death, his successor in title to such tenancy and in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, any rent reserved or otherwise payable shall continue to be due and payable so long as the tenancy subsists, the death of the landlord or tenant or both notwithstanding.”

The golden rule of interpretation of statutes is that where the words used in a statute are clear, precise and unambiguous, they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, unless to do so would lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the statute. See Ibrahim v. Barde (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 474) 513 at 517 B – C; Dankwambo v. Abubakar & Ors (2015) LPELR-25716(SC) (Pp. 16-17 paras. D); A-G Federation v. Abubakar (2007) All FWLR (Pt.375) pg.405 and Marwa & Ors v. Nyako & Ors (2012) LPELR-7837(SC) (Pp. 172 paras. A)

I have seen and fully appreciated the words of Section 72(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Law of Akwa Ibom State and I have no doubt that they are clear, precise and unambiguous. I believe that their natural and ordinary meaning clearly show that the death of a landlord shall not stop the obligation of the tenant to pay rent in respect of the property. In such circumstances, the rent shall remain due and payable to the owner of the reversion on the property. This obligation to pay the rent to the owner of the reversion is automatic and has nothing to do with such owner of the reversion on the property obtaining Letters of Administration in respect of the deceased estate.​ – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

 

STARE DECISIS – THE CONDUCT OF COURTS IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS

The principle of stare decisis does not state that every judgment of a superior Court is binding on an inferior Court. Accordingly, it is not enough for a party to cite a decision of a superior Court and place it before an inferior Court as a binding precedent without any effort to compare the facts of both cases to know if they are similar. For the principle of stare decisis to apply in any given case, the facts of the cases must be the same or similar. A judgment of a superior Court shall always be read in the light of the facts and circumstances on which the case is decided. It is the sacred facts that determines the application of the case as stare decisis to any subsequent case. See Oladiran v. State (2023) LPELR-60006(SC). – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

LANDLORD AND TENANT – PRIMARY LAWS THAT GOVERN A LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIP IN AKWA IBOM

Certainly, the relevant laws that regulate and govern primarily a landlord and tenant relationship in Akwa Ibom State are Landlord and Tenant Law, Cap. 71 Vol. 4, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000 and the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Law, Cap. 110 Vol.5, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000. The laws are not exclusive and a Court is not limited to those two laws in the determination of a landlord and tenant case since the Court is at liberty to apply other relevant laws, for example, the Evidence Act, to arrive at the justice of the case before it. – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

 

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

It is true that an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage in the proceedings and once raised it is advisable for the Court seised of the matter to determine same. However, whereas in the instant case, the suit has been unduly delayed and is at an advanced stage of almost completion that a party chose to throw up the preliminary objection on jurisdiction, wisdom, prudence and proper administration of justice demand that the trial Court should have asked the parties to incorporate and argue the issue of jurisdiction in their final addresses. By so doing, the trial Court in the course of its judgment will first rule on the issue of jurisdiction and notwithstanding the side the ruling on jurisdiction goes, still proceed to deliver judgment on the merits of the case.

By this method, the trial Court will complete everything about the case. In the event of an appeal, the appellate Court will have the benefit of dealing with both the ruling on the preliminary objection and decision on the merit and thereby bring the litigation to an end with nothing left to remit back to the trial Court. As it is now, this case will return to the Rent Control Court for completion and hopefully a judgment on the claim of the respondent will be delivered but it is sad that ten years have gone.

I hope that trial Courts should learn a lesson and be alert to resist the antics of parties who may fly the card of jurisdiction as a magic wand to stall the trial. In this wise, I recall, with pain, the words of Uwais, CJN in the case Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 76, (2000) LPELR-445(SC)at page 27, paras. A – E:

“The appeal against the ruling was delivered by the Court of Appeal on the 16th day of February, 1989. The final judgment on the interlocutory appeal is delivered today by this Court. It has thus taken thirteen years for the case to reach this stage. With the success of the plaintiff’s appeal before us, the case is to be sent back to the High Court to be determined, hopefully, on its merits after a delay of 13 years. Surely, this could have been avoided had it been that the point was taken in the course of the proceedings in the substantive claim to enable any aggrieved party to appeal on both the issue of jurisdiction and the judgment on merit in the proceedings as the case might be. I believe that counsel owe it, as a duty, to the Court to help reduce the period of delay in determining cases in our Courts by avoiding unnecessary preliminary objections as the one here; so that the adage ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ may cease to apply to the proceedings in our Courts.” – Per P. C. Obiora, JCA

 

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Administration of Estate Law, Cap 2 Vol. 1 Laws of Akwa Ibom State.
2. Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Law, Cap. 110 Vol. 5 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000
3. Landlord and Tenants Law, Cap. 71 Vol. 4 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000.
4. Evidence Act

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT