SOBAMOWO V. FEDERAL PUBLIC TRUSTEE

• Pages: 209-214

SOBAMOWO V. FEDERAL PUBLIC TRUSTEE



209

SOBAIVIOWO V. FEDERAL PUBLIC

VMS TEE

5

MRS C.A. SOBAMOWO

V

10 THE FEDERAL PUBLIC TRUSTEE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

15



SOWEMIMO,



J.S.C.

29th May, 1970

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 7

7

/

1

968

Land Law - Landlord and Tenant - Possession - Tenant allowing defendant to

use room jointly with him for storing goods and giving defendant a key for

20





the room - Later tenant returning his own key to Landlord but leaving the

other key with the defendant who continued thereafter as sole user of the

room - Whether defendant was 'occupying" the premises within the meaning

of the definition of "tenant" in section 2 of the Recovery of Premises Act.

25 ISSUE:

1. What is required to establish that a defendant is "occupying" premises within

the meaning of tenant in section 2 of the Recovery of Premises Act.

FACTS:

The landlord sued for possession and

mesne

profits. The tenant allowed the

30





defendant to use the premises jointly with him for storing her goods. The tenant

also gave her a key with which to enter the room whenever she wished. The ten-

ant left in October and returned his key to the landlord but left the other key with

the defendant who continued as the sole user of the room untill sued by the plain-

tiff. Both the Chief Magistrate and Chief Justice held that the test to be applied was

35





whether the defendant was occupying the premises within the definition of a ten-

ant. If so, it would have been ne cessary for the plaintiff to have given the required

notice if he was to recover the premises.

On appeal to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

40





1. To establish that the defendant was 'occupying" the premises within the meaning

of "tenant" in s.2 of the Recovery of Premises Act, she must establish actual use,

which is lawful, of the premises so as to have possession of the premises

coupled with such degree of permanence as would amount to occupation.

Nine months stay as in this case was held to constitute sufficient permanence.

45





2. There must be actual lawful user of the premises and not merely the right to

use objects on the premises. In this case, the defendant did occupy part of the

premises when she had a key and stored her goods there.

3. For the purpose of the Recovery of Premises Act, it is possible to have joint

user and possession as in the case of the tenant and defendant.

50





4. It makes no difference whether or not money is paid for the use of the premises

and in fact it is not known h( re that the defendant paid any money for the rights

she exercised.