CORAM

PARTIES

1. ALHAJI J.A. ODUTOLA 2. J.A. ODUTOLA PROPERTY DEV. IND. CO.LTD APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant claimed possession, outstanding rent and mesne profits against the Respondent who occupied property belonging to the Appellant even though the Appellant says Thoresen and Co (Nig) Ltd rented the property and not the Respondent.

HELD

The Supreme Court held that the Respondent was a tenant at will. The Judgement of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the judgement of the trial court was affirmed.

ISSUES

1.Whether the learned Justices of the lower court were not wrong when they held that a yearly tenancy agreement existed between the Appellants and the Respondent.2.Whether the learned Justices of the lower court were not wrong in holding that the Appellants were not entitled to mesne profit on the ground that no valid notice to quit was issued when there was a continuous use and occupation of the premises by the Respondent without the payment of rents.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DEFINITION OF TENANCY AT WILL

“A tenancy at will though called a tenancy is unlike any other tenancy except a tenancy at sufferance to which it is next of kin. It has been properly described as a personal relation between the landlord and his tenant; it is determined by the death of either of them or by one of a variety of acts, even by an involuntary alienation, which would not affect the subsistence of any other tenancy.” Per Lord Simonds in Wheeler v. Mercer.In Pan Asian African Co. Ltd. v. National Insurance Corporation (Nig) Ltd. (1982) All NLR 229, this court held that holding over with consent of the landlord makes the tenant, a tenant at will.” – NIKI TOBI, JSC.

CASES CITED

Wheeler v. Mercer (1956) 3 All ER 631.Pan Asian African Co. Ltd. v. National Insurance Corporation (Nig) Ltd. (1982) All NLR 229,Debs v. Cenico Nigeria Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 32) 846

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT