Victory for Landlords in the Court of Appeal
In the case of Rev. Joseph O. TOFIJI BANKOLE & ANOR v.MR. OLAYINKA OLADITAN, the Court of Appeal decided that tenants could not use the defence of faulty service to evade eviction and deny landlords the right to recover their property. Below, we reproduce the salient section of the judgement.
The writ of summons in this suit was filed and i s sued on 18/08/2008. On 26/09/2008, the Appellants, as Defendants, filed a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance as contained at pages 28 and 29 of the Record. The matter remained in Court until 28/03/2014 when judgment was entered in the suit. The suit lasted over 5 years.
From the commencement of the proceedings in August, 2008 to the delivery of judgment in March, 2014, the Appellants have more than enough notice that the landlords are desirous of possession of their property and recovery of arrears of rent. Gone were t h e d a y s w h e n c a n t a n k e ro u s ,
troublesome and unpleasant tenants hold on to technicalities of service of statutory notices to defeat the claim of property owners by illegally holding Victory for landlords in the Court of Appeal unto such properties.
The Supreme Court has now responded to the sad occasion by coming to the rescue of landlords and property owners whose cantankerous and recalcitrant tenants have over the years been clinging on to the issue of improper service of statutory notices to unjustifiably hold on to the landlords properties without payment of agreed rent or complying with the terms of the lease agreement. In the case of Pillars Nigeria Limited vs. William Kojo Desbordes & Anor (2021) LPELR-55200 (SC) @ pages 24-26, the Nigerian Judicial Oracle took a very proactive and practical decision, per Ogunwumiju, JSC, as follows: The justice of this case is very clear. The Appellant has held on to property regarding which it had breached the lease agreement from day one. It had continued to pursue spurious appeal through all hierarchy of Courts to frustrate the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 8/2/2000 about twenty years ago. After all, even if the initial notice to quit was irregular, the minute the writ of summons dated 13/5/1993 for possession was served on the appellant, it served as adequate notice. The ruse of faulty notice used by tenants to perpetuate possession in a house or property which the landlord had slaved to build and relies on for means of sustenance cannot be sustained in the property has to be sufficient notice on the tenant that he is required to yield up possession.
I am not saying here that statutory and proper notice to quit should not be given. Whatever form the periodic tenancy is whether weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly etc., immediately a writ is filed to regain possession, the irregularity of the notice, if any, is cured. Time to give notice should start to run from the date the writ is served. If for example, a yearly tenant, six months after the writ is served and so on. All the dance drama around the issue of the irregularity of the notice ends. The Court would only be required to settle other issues, if any, between the parties. To the glory of God, we are now at a new dawn with the above-quoted decision of the apex Court.
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO Justice of the Court Of Appeal