A statutory yearly tenant is entitled to half a year’s notice. Where the period or the duration of quit notice served on the defendant falls short of the statutory half year notice, it will be wrong of the trial Court to grant the landlord’s/plaintiff’s claims in a recovery of premises case. Ayinke Stores Ltd v. Adebogun (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 682) 1797 p. 1807, para. E C.A; Cobra Ltd. v. Omote Estate & Inv. Ltd (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 655)
An action for recovery of premises has to strictly comply with the procedure as provided in the recovery of premises law. Any procedure outside the one provided for the recovery is fatal. To succeed, the landlord has to prove that he gave authority to counsel to act on his behalf; the statutory notices must be issued to determine the tenancy; in addition to the quit notice, the tenant ought to be served the landlord’s One-Week notice of Landlord’s intention to apply to Court for possession. Ayinke Stores Ltd v. Adebogun (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 682) 1797 pp. 1807-1808, paras H-D; Cobra Ltd. v. Omote Estate & Inv. Ltd (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 655)1; Sule v. Nigeria Cotton Board (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 17; Pan Asian Ltd v. N.I.C.O.N. Ltd (1982) 13 NSCC 293
The qualification of becoming a tenant under the law is lawful possession of the demised property. A person gets lawful possession of the premises after the payment of the agreed rent with the Landlord for the particular premises, as acceptance of the terms and conditions settled with the Landlord in the agreement they reached on that. Section 40 (i) of the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Law of Lagos State. Abeke v. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt.659) SC.
Where a tenant for a fixed term fails or refuses at the expiration of his tenancy to vacate possession and wrongfully (that is without the consent of the landlord), continues in possession, he would at common law be a tenant at sufferance. A tenancy at sufferance arises where a tenant, originally had valid tenancy but the tenant remains without the legal will of the Landlord after the tenancy had expired Abeke v. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt.659) SC, p. 676, paras. B-D; Adunje v. Nigeria Airways Ltd (1987) NWLR (Pt.55) 126.
A tenant at sufferance arises where a tenant, having valid tenancy, holds over without the landlord’s assent or dissent. Such a tenant differs from a trespasser in that his (tenant at sufferance) original entry was lawful. A tenancy at sufferance, in these days of most States enacting Landlord and Tenant laws, has become better described as a Statutory Tenant – though his contractual tenancy period has expired he continues as under the Landlord and Tenant law of the particular State, especially as regards what his rent is and how the premises may be lawfully recovered or repossessed from him. A tenant at will in that his tenancy exists with the landlord’s assent but without being period-defined; he stays at the will and mercy of the landlord. His tenancy may be converted into a yearly or other periodic tenancy in the usual way. A trespasser is one who enters into occupation without permission or unlawfully occupies from the point of entry. See African Petroleum Ltd V. Owodunni (1991) NWLR (Pt. 210) 391 Abeke v. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 659) SC, p. 676, paras. B-D; Adunje v. Nigeria Airways Ltd (1987) NWLR (Pt. 55) 126.
A tenant at will generally conveys a mutual wish or intention on the part of the tenant and the landlord in the operation of the estate. A tenancy at will is built into the mutual understanding that both the tenant and the landlord can terminate the tenancy when any of them likes or at any time convenient to any of them. In a tenancy at will, the tenant is the tenant at will because he stays at the landlord mercy, the landlord can send him parking at any time the landlord pleases. In other words, the tenant occupies the estate at the pleasure or happiness of the landlord. Under the present Statute regime, as different from the common law regime, this is however still subject to proper notice emanating from the landlord. Odutola & Anor v. Papersack Nig. Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470.
A disclaimer by a tenant from year to year of the title of his landlord or of the person for the time being entitled to immediate reversion as assignee etc. of the landlord will operate as a waiver by the tenant of the usual notice to quit and will in effect, determine the tenancy at the election of the landlord or other person lawfully acting for him. A notice to quit is only required where a tenancy is admitted on both sides and if a defendant denies tenancy, there can be no necessity to end what he says does not exist. Abeke v. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 659) SC, pp. 676-677, paras. F-A.
A tenant is estopped, under any circumstance, from disputing the title of his landlord. This applies to written and oral tenancy agreement as well as to leases under seal. Thus a lessee cannot dispute his lessor’s title by setting up an adverse title while retaining possession. . Abeke v. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 659) SC, p. 673, paras. E-F. Toronto Hospital Nig. Ltd V. Ukpaka (2017) HELAR ratio 2
A tenancy at will is determined by a seven days’ notice of intention of the landlord to recover possession. Even if six months’ notice was given, it does not per se, change the nature and legal character of the tenancy in issue. Odutola & Anor v. Papersack Nig. Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470.
Mense profit means intermediate profits – that is, profits acquiring between two points of time, that is between the date when the defendant ceased to hold the premises as a tenant and the date he gives up possession. It is calculated exactly along the line of the rent that the tenant was paying while the tenancy lasts, it is actually the rent for the premises by another name called from when the Landlord issues Notice of his intention to proceed to court to recover his premises or the tenant terminates the tenancy. From that moment the tenancy is terminated the word rent takes the new name of mense profit. Abeke V. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 697) 659 SC; Omotosho V. Oloriegbe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 87) 225.
The action for mense profit, ordinary does not lie unless either the landlord has recovered possession or the tenant’s interest in the land has come to an end or the landlord’s claim is joined with a claim for possession. It is only a claim for damages for trespass arising from the particular relationship of landlord and tenant. See Abeke V. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 697) 659 SC; Debs V. Cenico Nigeria Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 32) 846; Bramwell V. Bramwell (1942) 1 KB 370.
One of the differences between menseprofit and damages for use and occupation is the date of commencement. While menseprofits begin to run from the date of service of the process for determining the tenancy, damages for use and occupation start to ascertain an amount which may constitute a reasonable satisfaction for the use and occupation of the premises held over by the tenant. A claim for menseprofit is based on trespass by the defendant in occupation and it is inappropriate in respect of lawful occupation as a tenant, it can only be maintained when the tenancy has been duly determined according to law. See Abeke V. Odunsi (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 697) 659 at pp. 677-678, paras. H-C; Omotosho V. Oloriegbe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 87) 225; Ayinke V. Lawal (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 356) 263; Debs V. Cenico Nigeria Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 32) 846; Bramwell V. Bramwell (1942) 1 KB 370.
No. The Law is that, while a tenancy is extant and the tenant is in possession, Landlord action in trespass against a third party trespasser would fail. The right to do so resides in the Tenant who is possession of the premise. Are –v- (Paye [1986] 3 NWLR (PT 29) 416.
Where trespass is committed through an agent of a landlord, even of a disclosed principal or any other person, the Law appears settled that the agent is as much liable for the trespass as his principal