Papersack Nigeria Limited V. Alhaji J. A. Odutola & Anor (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, J.C.A.

By writ of summons filed on the 22nd July, 1993 in Lagos High Court Ikeja, the respondents commenced the suit against the appellant for arrears of rent, possession and mesne profit in respect of premises known as 44 Eric Moore Road, Iganmu Estate, Lagos.

Pleadings were exchanged and amended and the case proceeded to trial. At the end of the trial, the trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the respondents.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court and appealed to this court. The learned counsel for the appellant filed a brief of argument on its behalf and formulated the following issues for determination:
“(a) Whether the lower court was right when it held that the defendant was a tenant-at-will.
(b) Whether the lower court was right when it held that the defendant’s tenancy was duly terminated by a valid notice to quit.
(c) Whether the lower court was right when it held that there was a valid assignment of the property the subject matter of the tenancy to the 2nd plaintiff thereby giving it status to issue the notice to quit which the court found to have been validly issued.
(d) Whether the lower court was right in its assessment of the sum if any, due to the plaintiff and interest thereon.
(e) Whether in the circumstances of this case wherein the tenancy had not been determined, the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit over and above the agreed rent.”

The respondents also filed a brief and formulated five issues for determination as follows:
“(a) Is the lower court not right when it found that the defendant was a tenant-at-will?
(b) Is the lower court not right when it held the defendant’s tenancy was duly terminated by a valid notice to quit?
(c) Is the lower court not right when it held that there was a valid assignment of the property, the subject-matter of the tenancy to the 2nd plaintiff thereby giving it status to issue the notice to quit which the court found to have been validly issued?
(d) Is the lower court not right in its assessment of the sum if any, due to the plaintiffs and interest thereon?
(e) Where in the circumstances of this case the defendant’s tenancy has been determined, is the plaintiff not entitled to the mesne profit as found upon by the trial court?”

The two briefs have not set out the facts of the case by way of summary but have brought out the facts in the course of arguing the issues. From my reading of the pleadings and the record of appeal the facts of the case are not complicated.

The respondents’ case was that the appellant occupied the disputed property without any formal tenancy agreement in the year 1982 and started paying N200, 000.00rent annually.
The attempt to formalize the tenancy between the 1st respondent and the appellant in a lease did not work out but the appellant continued to occupy the property, as a tenant-at-will. Later the 1st respondent assigned the property to the 2nd respondent which eventually gave appellant notice to quit the property.

At the time of the suit the appellant was in arrears of rent and the respondents sued for the arrears as well as mesne profit because the appellant continued to occupy the property even after it had been given notice to quit.

The appellant’s case was that it indeed entered into the premises with the consent of the 1st respondent by an oral tenancy agreement, which commenced in June 1982. It was paying N200, 000.00 rent yearly to the 1st respondent as a yearly tenant. The 1st respondent tried to unilaterally increase the rent and the appellant resisted it.

The appellant claimed that it was not in arrears of rent but that the 1st respondent refused to claim rent from it. The appellant also claimed that its tenancy was not duly terminated by valid notice to quit.

On the first issue, the main complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the evidence before the trial court could not sustain the finding that the appellant was a tenant-at-will. He referred to the admission of the 1st respondent that the appellant was a yearly tenant and the fact that the appellant was given six months notice to terminate the tenancy.

He said that the tenancy started on the 1st of June, 1982 and the annual rent was N200,000.00 which was being regularly paid by the appellant to the 1st respondent. There was therefore no justification for the court to hold that the appellant was a tenant-at-will.

He relied on the case of Pan Asian African Co. Ltd. v. National Insurance Corporation Nigeria Limited (1982) 9 SC 1, (1982) All NLR reprint 215.

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court was right when it found that the appellant was a tenant-at-will from 1980 when Thorensen & Co. Ltd. ceased to be a tenant in the warehouse in the disputed property.