Mrs. Lily Uyanne Vs Ofor Asika (1975)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

DAN. IBEKWE, J.S.C. 

This case originated in the Chief Magistrate Court, Onitsha, and it was, therefore, tried without pleadings. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of 120 being arrears of rent in respect of the property situate at No. 10 Iweka Road, Onitsha at 15 a month. The narrow issue which falls to be decided in this case is whether the said property at No. 10 Iweka Road, Onitsha is a business premises for the purpose of the East Central State Edict No. 10 of 1970 entitled Vacant Premises (Reoccupation Provisions).

The Edict in question was promulgated by the East Central State Government at the end of the civil war in order to tackle the acute accommodation problem which arose in some parts of the State soon after the cessation of hostilities. The Edict was not intended to be of general application. It applied only to a few towns which had been badly hit by the ravages of the war.

The First Schedule to the Edict set out the Disaster Areas as follows:
“FIRST SCHEDULE
Disaster Areas
Afikpo Division
Njikoka Division
Ogidi Town
Okigwi Township
Onitsha Urban
Uzuakoli Town”

The maximum rent fixed by the Edict for any flat or house in a “Disaster Area” was 3 per month. The most important aspect of this Edict which seems to us to be relevant for the purpose of this appeal is PART III, sections 8 and 9 which are set out as follows:

“PART III- DISASTER AREAS

8. (1) The places listed in the First Schedule to this Edict are hereby declared to be disaster areas and the provisions of this Part of this Edict shall apply in respect thereto:
Provided that nothing in this Part contained shall be construed as applying to business premises or to rebuilt or newly built houses notwithstanding that they are situated in a disaster area:

“And provided further that the provisions of this Part of this Edict shall not apply to any premises belonging to persons who are not of East-Central State origin:
And provided further that the provisions of this Part of this Edict shall not apply in respect of a house situated in a low density area notwithstanding that it is also in a disaster area.

9. Notwithstanding anything in this or any other enactment contained, the rents payable in a disaster area shall be as stipulated in the Second Schedule to this Edict.”

It seems to us that the effect of the first proviso to section 8 (1) above is that the prescribed rents payable in a “Disaster Area” under section 9 above shall not be applicable to “business premises or to rebuilt or newly built houses notwithstanding that they are situated in a disaster area”.

It is not in dispute that the defendant in this case lives and also carries on his trade as an Architect, Quantity Surveyor and Building Contractor in part of No. 10 Iweka Road, the property in question.
There is also evidence given by the plaintiff, which the learned Chief Magistrate, no doubt, accepted that the premises at No. 10 Iweka Road had been a business premises ever since it was built. Furthermore, the plaintiff testified that the only lawyer now occupying part of the premises paid rent at 15 per month for his chambers.

In reaching his judgment the learned Chief Magistrate held, quite rightly in our view, that since the Edict did not define “business premises” the question as to whether or not a premises is a business premises for the purpose of the Edict should depend on user. At this stage, we think that it is sufficient to say that there was ample evidence before the Chief Magistrate Court to the effect that the said property at No. 10 Iweka Road, Onitsha, had always been used for business purposes. That evidence was not seriously challenged by the defendant at the trial. On 7th December, 1971, the learned Chief Magistrate entered judgment on the plaintiff for 105, being arrears of rent from April to October 1970 plus costs assessed at 20 guineas.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Magistrate the defendant appealed to the High Court, Onitsha, on five grounds. Egbuna J., heard the appeal on 22nd June, 1972 and thereafter adjourned the case for judgment.

In a reserved judgment delivered by the learned appellate judge on 18th July, 1972 he allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Chief Magistrate as well as the costs awarded, entered judgment for the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiffs claim with costs assessed at 8 guineas in the Court below and 15 guineas in the High Court.