CORAM
GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY N. ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
PARTIES
PAN ASIAN AFRICAN CO. LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were granted a tenancy (or lease) of a flat for residential purposes for a term of 3 years which was renewed for another 3 years. Upon its expiration, the appellants intended to enter into a new agreement before the conclusion of the new tenancy agreement, the landlord, Messrs. Island Properties Limited sold and transferred title to the property to the respondents.
HELD
Appeal was allowed.
ISSUES
1. Is the flat, the subject matter of the action giving rise to this appeal, an accommodation controlled by the provisions of the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Law 1976 No. 9 of 1976?
2. Are the appellants “tenants” within the definition of the meaning of the word in the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Law No. 9 1976?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHO IS A “TENANT”
“The position therefore is that at the time the respondents obtained the transfer of title to the property, the appellants were tenants lawfully in occupation of the premises within the meaning of the word tenant in the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Law 1976.” Obaseki, JSC.,
GENERAL RULE OF ESTOPPEL IN TENANCY
“The general rule is that a tenant is estopped from denying his landlords title, and a landlord from denying his tenants.” Obaseki, JSC.
TENANT AT WILL – WHO IS
“Holding over with the consent of the landlord made the appellants tenants at will. This is well settled in law.” Obaseki, JSC.,
CASES CITED
1. Akinosho v. Enigbokan & Anor. (1955) 21 NLR 88
2. Sobamowo v. The Federal Trustee (1970) 1 All NLR 257.
3. Cooke v. Loxley (1792) 5 TR 4
4. Achorne v. Gomme (1824) 2 Bing 54
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Law No. 9 of 1976
Magistrates Court Law Cap. 82