Jamil Tannous V U.k. Kirpalani And Anor (1968)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

COKER,J.S.C. 

The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit instituted at the Lagos Magistrate’s Court (No. 595211963, Jamil Tannous v.U.K. Kirpalani, etc.). The respondents were the defendants to the action. As expressed on his writ the plaintiff claimed against the defendants:-

“the sum of £400 being arrears of rents owed by the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of the premises fully furnished situate at No. 37, Balogun Street, Lagos, Nigeria, let out to the defendants by the plaintiff at the agreed rate of £200 yearly.”

Pleadings are not filed in the magistrates’ courts but in accordance with the Magistrates” Courts Rules the defendants were asked to plead to the plaint and they pleaded “not liable.”

At the hearing the plaintiff gave evidence and called wit-nesses to show that after hiring an unfurnished room at No. 37, Balogun Street, Lagos, for £75 he proceeded to furnish it after which he !et out the room to the defendants at an annual rent of £200 (two hundred pounds). The letting to the first defendant was for a period of one year initially but that defendant apparently left the country soon thereafter and assigned the premises to the defendants’ company in which he was one of the two partners. After the first defendant had vacated the premises and the company had taken over (with the general manager, Mr. Bhojwaney, occupying the apartment) some letters were received by the plain-tiff from the company’s solicitors indicating that it had come to their knowledge that the premises had been let to the plaintiff at £75 per annum and that the defendants were no more willing to pay the rent of £200 per annum but will pay only an amount of E75 per annum.

The plaintiff had apparently refused to accept cheques for this amount sent to him as rents by the defendants. Evidence was given on behalf of the defence to show that since the plaintiff had himself hired the apartment at £75 per annum the defendants were not willing to pay any more than that amount as rent. It was contended on behalf of the defence that the plaintiff would be contravening the provisions of section 6 of the Rent Restriction Act, Cap. 183 if he was letting out at any amount over £75.

The learned trial Magistrate who heard the case rejected the case put forward for the defendants for refusing to pay the agreed rent of £200 per annum and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the amount claimed by him. In part of his judgment he observed that:-

“There is no denial by the defence that furniture as tabulated by the plaintiff are (sic) now in the room. There is no denial either that these furniture are now being used. The question now is, was the room let to U.K. Kirpalani fully furnished? . (Chagoury confirmed that he was offered the room fully furnished. The room, he said, is directly opposite his own room. He confirmed that the plaintiff’s furniture are still in the room and being used by the Indians.

The evidence of the defendants’ representative also confirmed the fact that the plaintiff’s furniture are in the room and that they are being used. It is also clear that the room was let at the rate of £200 per annum:’

The learned trial Magistrate therefore found that the room was let to the defend-ants fully furnished and at a rent of £200 per annum and it is not sought before us to challenge the conclusion which he had reached on this aspect of the case. Further on in his judgment, the magistrate stated as follows:-

“No evidence to show that the defendants brought in their own furniture Into the room; and there is abundant evidence to show that the defendants made use of the furniture found in the room in succession.”

The Magistrate thereafter concluded that section 7 of the Rent Restriction Act did not apply to the case in hand and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendants the agreed rent in full.

The defendants appealed against the judgment to the high Court, Lagos. The appeal was heard and allowed by Sowemimo, J. The principal points argued before the High Court were:-

(i) that the defendants had not attorned tenants to the plaintiff; and