EBENEZER V. BELL

• Pages: 18-21

18



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1963] N.S.C.C.

In the present case I do not think it is necessary to decide what limits the law

sets to the judge's power of examining a document and forming his own conclu-

sion as to the handwriting. On the one hand the judge had before him the clear

denial of Chief Tijani Babalola; on the other hand he had the omission of the plain-

tiff to call either Lawanson or a handwriting expert from the police. I see no rea-



5

son why he should have thought it necessary or even proper to rely on his own

examination of tne documents in order to form a layman's opinion on a matter as

to which Lawanson could have spoken directly and an expert could have given an

opinion based on his specialised knowledge. In my view the judge came to a cor-

rect decision on the evidence before him, and I would dismiss the appeal with



1C

costs assessed at 22 guineas.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that Exhibit M, though executed

after Exhibit A, was registered before it and therefore took priority over it in ac-

cordance with section 16 of the Land Registration Act, even if Exhibit A was a ge-

nuine document. There may well be substance in this submission, but I find it



15

unnecessary to decide whether there is or not, since I prefer to rest my decision

on the grounds already stated.

Appeal

dismissed.

EBENEZER V. BELL

MRS. E.E. EBENEZER



APPELLANT

V

N.T. BELL



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 28/1962

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

15th January, 1963.

Landlord and Tenant - Unauthorised occupier sending money as rent - Landlord

not accepting it as rent but as compensation and giving notice to quit.

ISSUE:

1. Whether an unauthorised occupier can become a tenant by the landlord's



40

acceptance of money sent to him by such occupier.

FACTS:

The defendant's tenant left the rooms with O.E., another man, who took in the

plaintiff, a lady, to live with him; later O.E. left the rooms, and the plaintiff sent

money to the defendant as rent, but his solicitor wrote to tier that he accepted the



45

money as due for use and occupation of his rooms without his authority, and gave

her notice to quit. Money that she sent thereafter to the defendant was not ac-

cepted. She sued him alleging trespass; he counterclaimed for general damages

and loss of rent. The magistrate took the view that she was not a trespasser but

had acquired a right to possession and awarded her damages. The High Court



50

reversed the judgment. On appeal the plaintiff argued (a) that as the defendant

accepted the money, she became his tenant; also (b) that although she entered

the rooms as a lodger, she became a sub-tenant when she began paying rent to

O.E. The magistrate did not make an express finding on whether or not O.E. re-

20

25

3C

35