Patrick Erhunmunse V. John Ehanire (1998)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
ROWLAND, J.C.A.
The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff in suit No. OR/ACC/86R/87 filed and tried at the Oredo Area Customary Court, Benin City.
The plaintiffs claim against the defendant at the Area Customary Court is as follows:-
“(a) Possession of the storey building known and situate at NO.3 Osagie Street, Benin City.
(b) An order that the defendant do quit the storey building and premises known as and situate at No.3 Osagie Street, Benin City forthwith.
(c) An order that the defendant pay up outstanding electricity bills and water rate in respect of the said premises.
(d) Mesne profit at the rate of N400.00 per month from 1st March, 1986 till possession is given up.”
The plaintiff testified and called four witnesses while the defendant also testified and called three witnesses.
During the trial the defence counsel addressed the court and raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court in that the case is alleged to involve the issue of who out of the plaintiff and the defendant had title to the house at No.3, Osagi Street, Off St. Saviour Road, Off Sakponba Road, Benin City a place that is said to be clearly within the radius of 16km of Ring Road, Benin City and therefore an urban area under the Urban Area Designation Edict. Defence counsel further submitted that the proper forum for the determination of the case should have been the High Court which has exclusive jurisdiction over land matters in urban area.
The trial Area Customary Court overruled the objection raised and went on to hear the case and delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the Edo State High Court, essentially on the issue of jurisdiction.
The court at the conclusion of arguments, held that the Oredo Area Customary Court had jurisdiction in the matter. The defendant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate High Court has further appealed against the decision of the lower court to this court.
The appellant raised two issues for determination. They read:
“1. Whether the dispute between the parties in the trial court did or did not involve the issue of title to land in an urban area?
- Whether the learned appellate Judge was right in upholding the C decision of the Oredo Area Customary Court to the effect that the Area Customary Court had jurisdiction to entertain an action involving title to land in Oredo urban area.”
The respondent at page 2 of his brief adopts the issue formulated by the appellant. I shall therefore treat this appeal in the light of the issues formulated by the appellant.
It was submitted for the appellant that by section 39(1) of the Land Use Decree 1978, the High Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to title to land which are located in urban areas in respect of which a statutory certificate of occupancy had been issued. For this assertion, reference was made to a number of cases.
It was contended that in considering: the issues to be determined in the customary courts where pleadings are not usually filed and exchanged, the court must hear the evidence before it can be in a position to appreciate the case of the parties and the areas where the parties have joined issues which issues then fall for determination. It was argued that the claim must be read as a whole together with the evidence on records.
It was submitted that for a landlord/occupier of a house to become a tenant in the same property, the issue of title must be involved and since the property is in an urban area in respect of which a statutory certificate of occupancy had been issued by the then Governor of Bendel State, the Area Customary Court clearly lacked jurisdiction. It was contended that the proper forum is the High Court of the State which has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such matters.
For the respondent, it was submitted that the reliefs sought by the respondent at the trial Area Customary Court are amply provided for in the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Edict 1977 as amended by Edict No.6 of 1985. It was argued that the mere fact that a landlord requires his tenant to deliver up possession does not raise the issue of title. It is the contention of the respondent that landlord and tenant relationship arise from a grant or by purchase and a plaintiff who brings an action for possession of the premises from the tenant thereof must establish by evidence that he is the landlord of the premises. It was submitted that Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’ were tendered for the purpose of showing that the respondent is the landlord of the property in dispute.
The claim of the respondent in the Oredo Area Customary Court is adumbrated above. The reliefs in the claim are amply provided for in the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Edict of 1977 as amended by Edict No. 6 of 1985 applicable in Edo State. It goes without saying that the mere fact that a landlord requires his tenant to deliver up possession does not ipso facto raise the issue of title. A relationship of landlord and tenant is brought into being by an agreement between the landlord and the tenant, which agreement may be express or implied. Similarly, there is nothing wrong in relying on an oral tenancy agreement where the parties are ad idem. See Conac Optical (Nig.) Ltd v. Akinyede (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 212; Pan Asian African Co. Ltd v. NICON Ltd (1982) 9 SC I. In the instant case Exhibit ‘A’ is the certificate of occupancy in respect of the property situate at No.3 Osagie Street, Off St. Saviour Road, Benin City. The appellant by Exhibit ‘B’ the deed of transfer of the property to the respondent, had divested himself of the property and so question of ownership does not arise any more. In my view the issue of ownership had long been settled by the content of Exhibit ‘B’. I hold a strong view that it is merely for the purpose of showing that the respondent is the landlord of No. 3 Osagie Street, Benin City that Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ were tendered at the trial Oredo Area Customary Court.
The claim as borne by the record clearly states that the appellant was a tenant at will of the respondent and occupying the whole storey building and premises known as and situate at No.3 Osagie Street, Off St. Saviour Road, Benin City. There was therefore landlord and tenant relationship between the parties.
It should be noted that a landlord in relation to a premises is the person entitled to immediate reversion of the premises. See Coker v. Adetayo (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 454) 258.
It must be mentioned that in the case in hand, prior to the commencement of the action as manifest by the record, the respondent has been vested with the legal title to the property via the consent of the Military Governor of the then Bendel State and exemplified by Exhibit ‘B’ which the appellant admitted signing. It is manifest from Exhibit ‘B’ that the appellant had divested himself of any title to the property covered by Exhibit’ A’ the certificate of occupancy. Exhibit ‘B’ dated 17th February, 1986 assigned the residue of the term of 99 years granted in Exhibit ‘A’ to the respondent and this was about ten months before the action for possession by the respondent. I have no doubt in my mind that the assignment is valid and subsisting and has not been legally challenged by the appellant. To now argue in the appellant’s brief that the appellant is the owner in possession of No. 3 Osagie Street, Benin City is unfounded in law and in fact. The appellant during cross-examination at page 74 lines 21-29 of the record stated that he can read and write and that he signed Exhibits B, C, D, E, F and H. It seems to me therefore that the question of forgery does not arise. The truth of the matter therefore is that the issue of title having been settled several months before the commencement of the action became a none issue before the trial court and the appellate High Court.
I now move on to the second and last issue for determination in this appeal. It was submitted for the appellant that Exhibit ‘B’ was the document of title which the respondent relied on in his assertion of ownership of the appellant’s building at No.3 Osagie Street, Benin City. The respondent’s claim was that the appellant transferred his title to the said building to him by means of Exhibit ‘B’ which is his root of title. On the other hand, the appellant denied ever giving PW1 instructions to prepare Exhibit ‘B’ and neither did he sign or execute the said document. It was therefore submitted that the issue of ownership or title had to be resolved first before the court could proceed and determine other issues in the claim. It was contended that any defect in the competence of a court renders the proceedings before it a nullity. Reference was made to the case of Madukolu & ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) All NLR 587; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. It is the contention of the appellant that the issue of ownership or title of the house at No.3 Osagie Street, Off St. Saviour Road, Benin City is an issue that fell to be decided in the proceedings. It was submitted that the trial court acted without jurisdiction and therefore the whole proceedings in that court was a nullity on the ground that the issue of title to a house in an urban area is involved in this appeal.
For the respondent it was submitted that it is trite law that in determining whether a court has jurisdiction or not to entertain an action it is the plaintiff s claim that is relevant. For this assertion the following cases were cited:- Okonma v. Nwaegbu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) 622; Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC. 31 at 51. It was contended that the claim in this action is founded on the statute regulating the relationship between landlords and tenants in the then Bendel State of Nigeria now applicable to Edo State.
I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that it is trite law that in determining whether a court has jurisdiction or not to entertain an action it is the plaintiff’s claim that is relevant. See Okonma v. Nwaegbu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) 622; Adeyemi & Ors. v. Emmanuel Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC. 31 at pp. 51 – 52.
What then is the meaning of jurisdiction? It is defined in Vol. 10. Halsbury Laws of England 4th Ed. Paragraph 715 page 323 as follows:-
“By jurisdiction’ is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter or commission under which the court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular court has cognisance or as to area over which the jurisdiction extends, or it may partake of both these characteristic.”
See National Bank (NIg.) Limited & anor v. John Akinkunmi Shoyoye & anor. (1977) 5 SC. 181 at pp. 190 – 191.
In the case in hand, by section 2 Customary Courts (Amendment) Edict No. 5 of 1985, the jurisdiction and powers formerly conferred on rent tribunals in Bendel State applicable to Edo State were transferred to the Area Customary Courts to be exercisable by those courts. As I had said earlier in this judgment it is patently clear from the record and the exhibits before the trial Oredo Area Customary Court that the claim before that court is not for ownership or title to property but that of landlord and tenant.
In the case of Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) All NLR 581, (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, it is clearly stated that a court is competent when:
- It is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualification of its member.
- The subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction.
- The action is initiated by due process of law; and
- Any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled.From all that I have said hereinbefore in this judgment, the above four conditions laid down in Madukolu’s case were present before the Oredo Area Customary Court exercised its jurisdiction over this matter. In other words, the Oredo Area Customary Court is competent to hear this case on appeal before us.
I would like to say it loud again that the respondent sought reliefs enacted in the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Edict of 1977 as amended by Edict No. 6 of 1985.
The appellant as borne by the record became a tenant by grant to the respondent having divested himself of the property known as No.3 Osagie Street, Benin City by virtue of Exhibit ‘B’ which I consider valid in law and subsisting.
The assignment was effected with the consent of the Military Governor as required by the Land Use Act.
As I had said earlier in this judgment it is manifest from the content of Exhibit ‘B’ that issue of title was settled about ten months before the action for possession was instituted after due notices have been issued and thus title became a non issue before the Oredo Area Customary Court.
It should be noted that the appellant did not challenge the notices and did not counter claim. He also did not tender any document of title or any other document whatsoever to contradict or challenge the title of the respondent at the trial court.
For the purpose of completeness it should be noted that the findings of the lower courts are fully supported by evidence before the court and they are neither perverse nor patently erroneous. Thus, there is no reason to disturb them. See Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3 – 4 SC 31 at 75; Lamai v. Orbih (1980) 5-7 SC 28; Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291 at 326; Igwego v. Ezeugo (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 561 at 585.It should be mentioned again that pursuant to Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises (Amendment) Edict 1985 of Bendel State applicable to Edo State, rent tribunal matters were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Area Customary Court. Thus, the trial court in the instant case rightly adjudicated upon the claim for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit brought before it by the respondent.
In the light of the foregoing, this appeal must fail and I accordingly dismiss it. The judgment of the trial Oredo Area Customary Court and that of the Edo State High Court are affirmed. The respondent is entitled to costs assessed at N2,000.00.
Other Citations: (1998)LCN/0443(CA)
