IMPORTANT NOTICE

Under and by virtue of Lagos State Rent  Control and Recovery of Premises Law, tenant include such tenant or any person occupying any premises whether on payment of rent or otherwise but does not include a person occupying premises under bona fide claim to be the owner thereof. And generally, in interpreting whether there is an existence of tenancy relationship between landlord and tenant, it is the intention of the parties as may be inferred from their relationship that always governs. In this circumstance therefore, is it possible for a third party as your occupant in your rented house to work into the relationship between you and your landlord and eventually graduate to your landlord's tenant? The old case of MRS. C.A. SOBAMOWO V.  FEDERAL PUBLIC TRUSTEE reported in All Nigeria Law Report, 1970 is a good account on the above scenario.

In the said above case, Federal Public Trustee brought an action as a landlord against Mrs. Sobamowo in Magistrate Court for possession of a room in its premises. The original tenant in the room was no longer in possession of the room while Mrs. Sobamowo was at the time of going to court was still in physical possession of that room . It was clear from the evidence before the Court that the original tenant permitted Mrs. Sobamowo to keep some of her goods in the room and gave her a key to enable her to get at her property. When the original tenant vacated the property in October, 1965, he told Mrs. Sobamowo to get the permission of Federal Public Trustee, the landlord, which permission was not proved to have gotten.

Consequently, the trial Magistrate held that the giving of the key of the room by the original tenant to Mrs. Sobamowo coupled with the permission to keep her goods in the room constituted an intention to create legal obligations between the parties, and consequently the entry into the room by Mrs. Sobamowo was lawful. The trial Magistrate therefore resolved that Mrs. Sobamowo is a tenant to the landlord and not a trespasser.

Federal Public Trustee dissatisfied appalled to High Court, upon hearing, the High Court held that, the two elements required to constitute occupation in Recovery of Premises Law are actual possession and an intention to create the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Court went further that in this case, there was no intention on the part of the original tenant to create the relationship of tenant and subtenant of the room in dispute occupied by both of them and that, the original tenant could not create the relationship of joint or common tenants with Mrs. Sobamowo without the knowledge and assent of Federal Public Trustee, the landlord. Consequently, the judgement of the trial Magistrate was set aside.

Dissatisfied Mrs.  Sobamowo appealed against this judgement too. Upon this appeal, the Court held that to establish that Mrs. Sobamowo was occupying the premises within Recovery of Premises Law; she must establish actual use, which is lawful, of the premises so as to have possession of the premises coupled with such degree of permanence as would amount to occupation. The Court went further that there must be actual lawful user of the premises as such and not merely the right to use objects on the premises, and that in this case, Mrs. Sobamowo did occupy part of the premises when she had a key and stored her goods as to that extent the premises were used absolutely by her and not at all by the tenant though in effect the possession of the premises as a whole was a joint one by the tenant and Mrs. Sobamowo.

In the consequence, the Court held that it is possible for the purpose of the Recovery of Premises Law for the user and possession to be joint between two or more persons and on the facts in the case, both the tenant and Mrs. Sobamowo had such joint user and possession and that it makes no difference whether or not money is paid for the use of the premises.

It is also decided in the case that, it was unnecessary to establish that Mrs. Sobamowo had a specific legal relationship with the landlord as her right as tenant is in law and not in contractual relationship and it also depends whether as a result of her occupation of the premises she is a tenant within the ambit of Recovery of Premises Law. If a person comes within the definition of “tenant” he is entitled to the protection of Recovery of premises Law and it makes no difference whether the landlord recognizes him as such or not. It is still beholden on the landlord to give that person as a statutory tenant the required notice under the Law.

The Court finally held that the Federal Public Trustee did not comply with the above provision, therefore the appeal was allowed as Mrs. Sobamowo won as she was held to be the statutory tenant of the Federal Public Trustee.

W.A. AMINU, ESQ. (08055113580)
W. AMINU AND COMPANY