OCCUPYING UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE RECOVERY OF PREMISES ACT

• Date: 06 February 2019

"To our mind occupying the premises here must mean "lawful occupation" as indeed Abbott, J. as he then was found in Akinosho v. Enigbokan (1955) 21 N.L.R. 88. Here however on the findings of fact the defendant was perfectly legally permitted to use the room by the tenant so that, if that use amounted to "occupying" the premises, it was to our mind clearly lawful as she was not there illegally and could rely on the tenant’s permission or licence for her use of the premises. In Dawodu v. Ijale (1946) 12 W.A.C.A 12 the West African Court of Appeal said at page 13: - "A statutory tenant has no estate or property as tenant but mere trespasser if the original possession had not been lawfully obtained." The really material issue here however is what constitutes "occupying" the premises. Now in both Akpiri v. W.A.A.C (1952) 14 W.A.C.A 195 at 196 and Okedare v. Hanid (1955) 15 W.A.C.A 17, the West Africa Court of Appeal emphasised that the word "occupying" in the definition of "tenant" must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. We note in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary a number of meanings of occupying which include - "to take possession of", "to reside in" and "to make use of". In the Queen v. St. Pancras Assessment Committee (1977) 2. Q.B.D. 581 Lush, J. said as to the requirement of occupation for the purposes of liability for rates at page 588: - "It is not easy to give an accurate and exhaustive definition of the word "occupier". Occupation includes possession as its primary element, but it also includes something more. Legal possession does not of itself...