NASR & ANOR. V. BOUARI

• Pages: 6-12

6



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1969] N.S.C.C.

It would have been sufficient to dispose of this appeal on the first point alone

since if the appellant is not liable in any case the question of negligence or dam-

ages would be irrelevant to his case. Counsel however insisted on arguing the sec-

ond point of appeal and we think it desirable to set out our views on a matter of

so frequent occurrence and of which one should rightly suppose that the law is at



5

rest.

The appeal therefore succeeds on both points raised on behalf of the appel-

lant and it is allowed. The judgment of the High Court, Kano State in Suit No;

K/80/64 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the plaintiffs' case be dississed

and that this should be the order of the Court. The respondents must pay to the



10

appellant costs of this appeal fixed at 56 guineas and the defendant's costs in the

court below fixed at 250 guineas.

Appeal allowed.

NASR & ANOR. V. BOUARI

1.

DIAB NASR



APPELLANTS

2.

EMIL NASR

V

EDWARD BOUARI



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 275/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

10th January, 1969.

Landlord and Tenant - Rent Restriction - "Premises" in S.1(4) of Rent Control

(Lagos) Amendment Act, 1965 - "or other lawful purposes" interpreted on

ejusdem generis principle Night Club not a shop or store - Dual user as

dwelling and Night Club not within definition of "Premises".

ISSUES:

1.

What is the effect of section 18(3) of the Interpretation Act 1964?

2.

Does a Night Club come within the definition of premises under the provisions

of the Rent Control (Lagos) Amendment Act 1965 ?.



40

FACTS:

The plaintiffs sued for £2,500 payable to them as rent in advance for their

premises. The defendant admitted owing them rent but in a counter-claim stated

that the plaintiffs had unlawfully increased his rent and relied on S.10 of the Rent

Restriction Act Cap.183. The High Court in its judgment awarded the plaintiffs



45

£600 being the amount stipulated by the Rent Restriction Act and on the counter-

claim by the defendant the court awarded £5,700 being the amount unlawfully col-

lected as rent by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs appealed arguing that the premises do

not come within the definition of "Premises" in the Rent Control (Lagos) Act and

thus cannot be guided by it.



50

HELD:

1. The effect of Section 18(3) of the Interpretation Act, 1964 is that there is a

presumption that the use of the word "or" means that the following words are

not to be construed as similar to the preceding words, so that the onus is on

15

20

25

30

35