A.S. Coker Vs Adeyemi Adetayo & Ors (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, JSC.

The appellant occupies the ground floor flat on a monthly tenancy basis at the rate of N45.00 per month. He was served a Notice to Quit under Recovery of Premises Law. The flat is in the premises of 5/7 Ajasa Street, Lagos.

The tenancy had expired on 26th December, 1982 and by a Notice of the “Owners” Intention to Apply to Recover possession” of the said flat “now being held over and detained” by the appellant, the appellant was notified that the respondents would apply for Form 8 under Recovery of Premises Law if notice to quit given to the appellant on 26th November, 1982 was not complied with by 17th February, 1983 they would apply to Magistrate Court to ask for court order to take possession.

The plaintiffs, seven in number, are brothers and sisters of the same father who originally owned the property, it devolved on them at his death. The flat consists of a living room and two bedrooms and appurtenances and as earlier said was on N45.00 monthly rent to the appellant since 1961. Apparently the appellant was a tenant in the house since the lifetime of the father of the respondents who died in 1967. The fourth respondent, Adewale Adetayo, was arriving from Bulgaria where he had gone to study and it was decided by the plaintiffs/respondents to accommodate him in the flat now in issue; this gave rise to notice of intention to recover the flat from the appellant.

When the 1st plaintiff, Adeyemi Adetayo (P.W.1) went to serve the Notice of Intention to Recover on the appellant he was violent and refused to accept it, pushing the 1st respondent in the process. The Notice was sent in the Despatch Book of Davis, Esqr., of counsel to respondents. Nonetheless the Notice was served. It was after this that on 9th February, 1983 Notice to Quit was served on him. He was rude and warned P.W.1 and others not to come to his floor or flat again.

He threw the Quit Notice on the floor. At the time of the action, even though his stay by the monthly tenancy had expired, he was owing arrears of rent in the sum of N1,490.00, i.e. from March 1980 to December 1982. The defendant then became a nuisance on the premises. Gas escaped from his cooker on four occasions, and on one occasion the Fire Brigade had to be called to save the house from burning down; the incident caused stampede as the appellant was away from the flat when the gas leak occurred. He insulted the 7th respondent many times calling her a bush woman and threatened to “teach her a lesson,” and that her counsel, Mr. Davis, would be sent out of Nigeria because he was “a foreigner.”

He kept on threatening he would kill P.W.1. He stacked heaps of planks in front of the block of flats and became a nuisance as it caused obstruction. The planks were there at the time P.W.1 was testifying in Magistrate Court. The door to the flat in question had to be forced open during gas leak and the gas cylinder was found to be leaking as the main valve was left open. Other act of nuisance was pouring of water on the children of the respondents in brazen assault.

To all these the only defence offered by the appellant was that he made several attempts to pay rents which were refused and that he finally paid the rent arrears into the court which solicitor to plaintiffs refused to collect.

The magistrate, in her judgment, gave possession to the plaintiffs and found that the plaintiffs consented to the flat being made available for the use of one of them about to return from Europe. She also found in nuisance as the act of the appellant in letting open the gas valve was also dangerous to the premises. She also made order for mesne profits. By his own evidence the appellant said he never paid any rent between 1977 and 1979 and that he volunteered to pay only after solicitor to the plaintiffs, Mr. Davis, spoke to him. He then testified inter alia as follows:

“I am sued for a sum of N1,490.00, but I told Mr. Davis to allow me to pay for the period he took over, but he refused. I have never asked for receipts from Mr. Davis or the Legal Trustees. I made a payment of N1,900.00 into the court in August, 1983 in the name of Mr. Davis and he refused to collect it.”

This evidence is a clear admission by appellant that he became a nuisance as a tenant, defaulting in payment of rents and not even paying for almost two years but scrambled, so to say, when faced with possibility of legal eviction to pay.

In our law on Recovery of Premises there is hardly any ambiguity in what a landlord can do in getting possession back from a defaulting or unfriendly tenant; so it is clear how possession can be recovered when the premises is required for use of the landlord or family. For monthly tenancy, one month’s notice is required, for yearly tenant six month’s notice is required. In other cases the notice required is that embodied in the tenancy agreement between the parties.

But failure to pay rent as and when due and without any reasonable explanation for such default, or bringing on the premises things or creating on the premises situations that threaten not only the safety of premises and occupiers but render quiet occupation impossible the intention to recover must be served on the party followed by Notice to Quit to be decided by the court.

Similarly when the premises is required for overriding convenience of the family Notice of intention to recover is sufficient to lead to recovery of the premises. All these remedies could be invoked individually or cumulatively if they do exist. The case of IRC v. Hinchy (supra) has no place in the clear words and spirit of Recovery of Premises Law Cap 118 Vol. 6 Laws of Lagos State 1973, and Rent Control Recovery of Residential Premises Edict of 1976.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal through which this case passed on appeal from the Magistrate Court cannot be faulted as the facts they relied upon for their various decisions are amply covered by the laws applicable. I find no merit in this appeal and the appellant for all the delay he caused in this case has been kindly treated by the respondents who even never opposed prayer for stay of execution when the appeal came to this court.

I dismiss the appeal as totally lacking in merit and affirm the decision of the Court of appeal. The appellant shall pay N1,000.00 as costs in this appeal to the respondents jointly and severally.

KUTIGI, JSC.

I agree with the judgment just read by my learned brother Belgore, JSC. The lower courts were right in their application of the law to the facts of the case. Their decisions are affirmed and the appeal dismissed with N1,000.00 costs against the appellant.

Other Citation: (1996) LCN/2694(SC)