Gibson Roberts V. Maria Samuel (1950)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Application of Recovery of Premises Ordinance (Cap. 193)—Only applicable
where relationship of Landlord and Tenant exists under the Ordinance or at
common law—Action dismissed, although plaintiff had an interest in the
property.

Facts

The appellant was the plaintiff, The trial Judge held that the appellant and the respondent were respectively landlord and tenant and found that the provisions of section 7 of the Recovery of Premises Ordinance (Cap. 123) should have been complied with, and a statutory notice to quit required by this section should have been served on the respondent. It was further argued that the trial Judge, having found that the appellant had an interest in the property, was wrong in dismissing the appeal.

The appellant’s case throughout was that the respondent did not consider him to be her landlord, and that the respondent admitted that at no time did she consider him to be her landlord. The respondent was not occupying the premises.

Held

No relationship of landlord and tenant had been established at common law. Although the appellant might come within the term ” landlord ” in section 2 (1) of the Ordinance, the respondent did not come within the definition of ” tenant “. Consequently, the provisions of the Ordinance were not applicable, and the appellant was entitled to an order for possession.

Held further, that the trial Judge, having made a definite finding that the appellant had an interest in the property which entitled him to seek possession, was wrong in dismissing the case.

Appeal allowed.