Redefining The
Concept Of Damages For Use And Occupation Of Land And Mesne Profits[1]
–
Concept Of Damages For Use And Occupation Of Land And Mesne Profits[1]
–
For starters,
it should be noted that the concept of damages for use and occupation of land is
a remedy available to the Landowner/Landlord in the event that a contractual
tenancy ceases to exist and the tenant/occupier thereafter enjoys statutory
protection under the Law[2].
By all standards, the requirement to pay compensation for use and occupation of
land is only applicable to a tenant[3].
it should be noted that the concept of damages for use and occupation of land is
a remedy available to the Landowner/Landlord in the event that a contractual
tenancy ceases to exist and the tenant/occupier thereafter enjoys statutory
protection under the Law[2].
By all standards, the requirement to pay compensation for use and occupation of
land is only applicable to a tenant[3].
According to
the Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011, a tenant includes a sub-tenant or any person
occupying any premises whether by payment of rent howsoever or by operation of
law and not persons unlawfully occupying any premises under a bona fide claim
to be the owner[4].
Undoubtedly, in a valid claim for damages for use and occupation, a tenancy
which may be contractual or statutory[5]
must exist.
the Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011, a tenant includes a sub-tenant or any person
occupying any premises whether by payment of rent howsoever or by operation of
law and not persons unlawfully occupying any premises under a bona fide claim
to be the owner[4].
Undoubtedly, in a valid claim for damages for use and occupation, a tenancy
which may be contractual or statutory[5]
must exist.
Where a
tenancy is created by operation of law, the tenant does not become a trespasser
until the tenancy has become duly determined according to law[6]. This position was emphasized by the apex
court in African Petroleum v Owodunni[7]
as follows:
tenancy is created by operation of law, the tenant does not become a trespasser
until the tenancy has become duly determined according to law[6]. This position was emphasized by the apex
court in African Petroleum v Owodunni[7]
as follows:
“Because a claim for ‘Mesne profits’ is based on trespass
and is inappropriate in respect of lawful occupation as a tenant, it can only
be maintained when the tenancy has been duly determined and the tenant becomes
a trespasser…where a tenancy is created by operation of law, the status of
trespasser will not arise, until the tenancy is duly determined according to
law… however, the lawful use and occupation of the land and premises implies an
agreement to pay damages for use and occupation of the land and premises. It is
a quasi-tenancy which the law recognises…”
and is inappropriate in respect of lawful occupation as a tenant, it can only
be maintained when the tenancy has been duly determined and the tenant becomes
a trespasser…where a tenancy is created by operation of law, the status of
trespasser will not arise, until the tenancy is duly determined according to
law… however, the lawful use and occupation of the land and premises implies an
agreement to pay damages for use and occupation of the land and premises. It is
a quasi-tenancy which the law recognises…”
This
presupposes that when a person holds over having the status of a statutory
tenant, he is not liable to pay mesne profits since he is not a trespasser but
would be liable to pay compensation for use and occupation. This position
appears to have received statutory backing. The Kaduna and Rivers landlord and
tenant laws provide that, where in the absence of an express subsisting tenancy
one person uses or occupies property of another person by his permission or
sufferance, there shall be implied a promise by the user or occupier to make a
reasonable payment for such use or occupation[8].
It goes further to provide that where an implied promise to pay for use and
occupation of property arises under this edict, it shall be enforceable by
action to be known as action for use and occupation[9].
presupposes that when a person holds over having the status of a statutory
tenant, he is not liable to pay mesne profits since he is not a trespasser but
would be liable to pay compensation for use and occupation. This position
appears to have received statutory backing. The Kaduna and Rivers landlord and
tenant laws provide that, where in the absence of an express subsisting tenancy
one person uses or occupies property of another person by his permission or
sufferance, there shall be implied a promise by the user or occupier to make a
reasonable payment for such use or occupation[8].
It goes further to provide that where an implied promise to pay for use and
occupation of property arises under this edict, it shall be enforceable by
action to be known as action for use and occupation[9].
For a claimant
to be entitled to compensation for use and occupation, there must have been
some tenancy, express or implied, between the claimant and the defendant during
the period in respect whereof the compensation is claimed and it is not enough
that the claimant was really entitled to the property. For example, where the
defendant occupied the property as tenant of another person from whom he
obtained the possession (aside from the landlord/landowner), or as a mere wrong
doer or willful trespasser, no action can be maintained. In the latter part of
this paper, judicial authorities shall be reviewed to ascertain whether there
is a distinction between these two concepts.
to be entitled to compensation for use and occupation, there must have been
some tenancy, express or implied, between the claimant and the defendant during
the period in respect whereof the compensation is claimed and it is not enough
that the claimant was really entitled to the property. For example, where the
defendant occupied the property as tenant of another person from whom he
obtained the possession (aside from the landlord/landowner), or as a mere wrong
doer or willful trespasser, no action can be maintained. In the latter part of
this paper, judicial authorities shall be reviewed to ascertain whether there
is a distinction between these two concepts.
While the
concept of damages for use and occupation is well appreciated under common law
and a couple of judicial authorities have tried to make a distinction, the laws
on recovery of premises of most States seek to merge these two separate heads
of claim without making any distinction[10].
concept of damages for use and occupation is well appreciated under common law
and a couple of judicial authorities have tried to make a distinction, the laws
on recovery of premises of most States seek to merge these two separate heads
of claim without making any distinction[10].
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DAMAGES FOR USE AND
OCCUPATION OF LAND AND MESNE PROFITS
OCCUPATION OF LAND AND MESNE PROFITS
Rent
is different from damages for use and occupation of land and mesne profits. Rent
is liquidated and ceases once the tenancy is determined while damages for use
and occupation commence immediately after determination of the tenancy and runs
until the court orders the tenant to vacate the property. Upon the obtention of
a valid court order, mesne profit begins to runs against the occupant who is
now adjudged a trespasser in the eye of the law.
is different from damages for use and occupation of land and mesne profits. Rent
is liquidated and ceases once the tenancy is determined while damages for use
and occupation commence immediately after determination of the tenancy and runs
until the court orders the tenant to vacate the property. Upon the obtention of
a valid court order, mesne profit begins to runs against the occupant who is
now adjudged a trespasser in the eye of the law.
The
basic similarity between these two heads of claim is that they both seek to
compensate the Landowner/ Landlord either as damages for use and occupation
under a quasi-contract in the case of a statutory tenant or as mesne profits
under the law of tort in the case of a trespasser. Idigbe JSC
defined the term ‘statutory tenant’ in Pan
Asian African Co. Ltd. v. National Insurance Corporation[11]
as:
basic similarity between these two heads of claim is that they both seek to
compensate the Landowner/ Landlord either as damages for use and occupation
under a quasi-contract in the case of a statutory tenant or as mesne profits
under the law of tort in the case of a trespasser. Idigbe JSC
defined the term ‘statutory tenant’ in Pan
Asian African Co. Ltd. v. National Insurance Corporation[11]
as:
“an occupier, who when his
contractual tenancy expires, holds over and continues in possession by virtue
of special statutory provision”.
contractual tenancy expires, holds over and continues in possession by virtue
of special statutory provision”.
On the other hand, a trespasser
according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary is defined as:
according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary is defined as:
“one who enters or remains on the real property of another
wrongfully or without the owner’s or possessor’s authority or consent”.
wrongfully or without the owner’s or possessor’s authority or consent”.
Stemming from
the above, a statutory tenant is a lawful occupant while a trespasser is
undoubtedly an unlawful occupant. Therefore, by all standards in our law, damages
for use and occupation is different from mesne profits.
the above, a statutory tenant is a lawful occupant while a trespasser is
undoubtedly an unlawful occupant. Therefore, by all standards in our law, damages
for use and occupation is different from mesne profits.
Whether a
tenant holds over at common law or as a statutory tenant under the relevant
statute, the contractual obligation of payment of rent hitherto binding on the
tenant becomes extinguished upon the expiration of the contractual term.
However, the law, general or statutory, compensates the landlord for the loss
of use and/or occupation and in appropriate cases where the tort of trespass is
established, for ‘mesne profits’. The two heads of claim differ from the
contractual rent in two material particulars. First, while damages for use and
occupation is usually liquidated at the agreed rent[12]
and certain, the quantum of mesne profit payable to the landlord in the event
of adversely holding over by the tenant is unliquidated and may not necessarily
follow from the amount initially fixed as rent. Secondly, while damages for use
and occupation is operative during the subsistence of the statutory tenancy,
mesne profit starts to run only after the expiration of the statutory tenancy
and the tenant holds over.
tenant holds over at common law or as a statutory tenant under the relevant
statute, the contractual obligation of payment of rent hitherto binding on the
tenant becomes extinguished upon the expiration of the contractual term.
However, the law, general or statutory, compensates the landlord for the loss
of use and/or occupation and in appropriate cases where the tort of trespass is
established, for ‘mesne profits’. The two heads of claim differ from the
contractual rent in two material particulars. First, while damages for use and
occupation is usually liquidated at the agreed rent[12]
and certain, the quantum of mesne profit payable to the landlord in the event
of adversely holding over by the tenant is unliquidated and may not necessarily
follow from the amount initially fixed as rent. Secondly, while damages for use
and occupation is operative during the subsistence of the statutory tenancy,
mesne profit starts to run only after the expiration of the statutory tenancy
and the tenant holds over.
LAGOS STATE AND RIVERS STATE LAWS AS
A CASE STUDY
A CASE STUDY
The
Lagos State Tenancy law 2011, has a different view as to how and when mesne
profits can be claimed. First we shall look at Section 47 Lagos State Tenancy
Law which defines mesne profit as follows:
Lagos State Tenancy law 2011, has a different view as to how and when mesne
profits can be claimed. First we shall look at Section 47 Lagos State Tenancy
Law which defines mesne profit as follows:
“Mesne profit means the rents and
profits which a tenant holds over during his occupation of the premises and
which he is liable to pay as compensation to the person entitled to
possession”.
profits which a tenant holds over during his occupation of the premises and
which he is liable to pay as compensation to the person entitled to
possession”.
Section 31 of the Lagos State Tenancy
Law also provides:
Law also provides:
“Where mesne profits or a sum for
the use and occupation of the premises are claimed, the claim shall show
the rate at which such is claimed, and where it is proved, judgment shall be
entered for the amount so proved”.
the use and occupation of the premises are claimed, the claim shall show
the rate at which such is claimed, and where it is proved, judgment shall be
entered for the amount so proved”.
The
Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011 does not make a clear distinction between the
period mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of premises may be
claimed. By virtue of the use of “or” in Section 31, the law recognises that
there is a distinction between these two concepts but it does not fully
appreciate or elucidate on any of these distinctions.
Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011 does not make a clear distinction between the
period mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of premises may be
claimed. By virtue of the use of “or” in Section 31, the law recognises that
there is a distinction between these two concepts but it does not fully
appreciate or elucidate on any of these distinctions.
From
the above underlined it means that mesne profit can only be claimed where it is
proven and judgment is to be given for the amount proven. The operative words
here are prove and judgment. What can therefore be deduced
from Section 31 of the Tenancy Law 2011, is that for the Landlord to claim
mesne profits same must have first been proven and judgment granted to the
landlord. There needs to be a revision of the Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011 to
make a clear distinction between these two heads of claim. The Law needs to
expressly provide for what is to be proven i.e. how damages for use and
occupation is to be measured, how mesne profits is to be calculated, the
prevailing rent in that locality for similar premises, the need to provide
expert evidence to confirm the prevailing rent amongst others.
the above underlined it means that mesne profit can only be claimed where it is
proven and judgment is to be given for the amount proven. The operative words
here are prove and judgment. What can therefore be deduced
from Section 31 of the Tenancy Law 2011, is that for the Landlord to claim
mesne profits same must have first been proven and judgment granted to the
landlord. There needs to be a revision of the Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011 to
make a clear distinction between these two heads of claim. The Law needs to
expressly provide for what is to be proven i.e. how damages for use and
occupation is to be measured, how mesne profits is to be calculated, the
prevailing rent in that locality for similar premises, the need to provide
expert evidence to confirm the prevailing rent amongst others.
Asides
from the Lagos State Tenancy Law, Landlord
and Tenant Law Cap 75 Laws of Rivers State, 1999 does not have any specific legislation on mesne
profits but only provides for damages for use and occupation. Section 101 of
the Rivers Law[13] provides:
from the Lagos State Tenancy Law, Landlord
and Tenant Law Cap 75 Laws of Rivers State, 1999 does not have any specific legislation on mesne
profits but only provides for damages for use and occupation. Section 101 of
the Rivers Law[13] provides:
“(1) Subject to this Law or any other
written Law in force in the State and in the absence of an express subsisting
tenancy, where one person uses or occupies property of another by his
permission or sufferance, there shall be implied a promise by the user or
occupier to make a reasonable payment for such use or occupation.
written Law in force in the State and in the absence of an express subsisting
tenancy, where one person uses or occupies property of another by his
permission or sufferance, there shall be implied a promise by the user or
occupier to make a reasonable payment for such use or occupation.
Provided that no such promise shall
be implied where the circumstances clearly negative it.
be implied where the circumstances clearly negative it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall
apply where a person uses or occupies a property without the knowledge of the
owner or a trespasser or otherwise against the will of the owner”.[14]
apply where a person uses or occupies a property without the knowledge of the
owner or a trespasser or otherwise against the will of the owner”.[14]
The
effect of Section 101 and 102 of the Law is to the effect that a claim for
mesne profits is impliedly subsumed under the concept of damages for use and occupation.
effect of Section 101 and 102 of the Law is to the effect that a claim for
mesne profits is impliedly subsumed under the concept of damages for use and occupation.
ANY PRACTICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
DISTINCTION?
DISTINCTION?
In
appreciating the distinction, it must be noted that damages for use and
occupation is only applicable to a statutory tenant. The follow up question is:
Can mesne profit be claimed against a statutory tenant? Under common law and
judicial precedents, a statutory tenant cannot be liable to pay mesne profits.
Professor I. O Smith SAN in his work also submits that it is a misnomer to
claim mesne profits from a statutory tenant[15].
He opined that since a claim for mesne profits can only be maintained when the
tenancy has been duly determined and the tenant becomes a trespasser, the
concept of mesne profit is only applicable after the determination of the
statutory tenancy and an order to deliver vacate possession has been obtained.
Where the defendant remains in possession after the date mandated by the court
and execution does not follow immediately, liability of the tenant may then lie
in mesne profits for it is only on such rare occasion that his occupation can
be said to be wrongful and there after become a trespass.[16]
appreciating the distinction, it must be noted that damages for use and
occupation is only applicable to a statutory tenant. The follow up question is:
Can mesne profit be claimed against a statutory tenant? Under common law and
judicial precedents, a statutory tenant cannot be liable to pay mesne profits.
Professor I. O Smith SAN in his work also submits that it is a misnomer to
claim mesne profits from a statutory tenant[15].
He opined that since a claim for mesne profits can only be maintained when the
tenancy has been duly determined and the tenant becomes a trespasser, the
concept of mesne profit is only applicable after the determination of the
statutory tenancy and an order to deliver vacate possession has been obtained.
Where the defendant remains in possession after the date mandated by the court
and execution does not follow immediately, liability of the tenant may then lie
in mesne profits for it is only on such rare occasion that his occupation can
be said to be wrongful and there after become a trespass.[16]
A
practical justification for a distinction between these two heads of claim is
founded on the fact that while damages for use and occupation is classified
under a quasi-contract between the landlord and the tenant being a tenant
protected by statute, a claim for mesne profits can only be founded under the
law of tort. Another practical justification for the distinction is that the
measurement of liability under these two heads of claim differs. The liability
of a statutory tenant is usually measured at the rate of the rent fixed under
the expired or terminated contractual tenancy while a tenant adversely holding
over at common law is a trespasser liable to pay mesne profits which is usually
unliquidated and need not be the equivalent of the amount of rent fixed under
the expired or terminated contractual tenancy but rent obtainable in similar
premises within the same locality.
practical justification for a distinction between these two heads of claim is
founded on the fact that while damages for use and occupation is classified
under a quasi-contract between the landlord and the tenant being a tenant
protected by statute, a claim for mesne profits can only be founded under the
law of tort. Another practical justification for the distinction is that the
measurement of liability under these two heads of claim differs. The liability
of a statutory tenant is usually measured at the rate of the rent fixed under
the expired or terminated contractual tenancy while a tenant adversely holding
over at common law is a trespasser liable to pay mesne profits which is usually
unliquidated and need not be the equivalent of the amount of rent fixed under
the expired or terminated contractual tenancy but rent obtainable in similar
premises within the same locality.
ATTITUDE OF THE NIGERIAN COURTS
The
judicial authorities on the point are conflicting. This is due to the fact that
different judges have given their own independent judgements and opinion on the
subject matter of mesne profits. It is worrisome that in recent times, lawyers
and our courts (particularly the magistrates’ court) have failed to appreciate
the distinction between these two heads of claim which is why a claim for ‘mesne profit for use and occupation’ at
the agreed rent is usually prayed for and the same granted by some courts[17].
We shall however analyse some of these different views vis-à-vis the relevant
statutory provisions.
judicial authorities on the point are conflicting. This is due to the fact that
different judges have given their own independent judgements and opinion on the
subject matter of mesne profits. It is worrisome that in recent times, lawyers
and our courts (particularly the magistrates’ court) have failed to appreciate
the distinction between these two heads of claim which is why a claim for ‘mesne profit for use and occupation’ at
the agreed rent is usually prayed for and the same granted by some courts[17].
We shall however analyse some of these different views vis-à-vis the relevant
statutory provisions.
The
earliest reported decision on in this regard appears to be Yekinni v. Etti[18], where De Lantang CJ observed:
earliest reported decision on in this regard appears to be Yekinni v. Etti[18], where De Lantang CJ observed:
“A tenant who holds over under
the Rent Restriction Act is not a trespasser and does not become one until he
disobeys an order of the court ordering him to give up possession. Strictly
speaking therefore rent should be claimed up to the date of the order of
possession and mesne profits thereafter. In practice it is immaterial whether
the claim is labelled rent or mesne profits as there is usually no monetary
difference between rent and mesne profits”.
the Rent Restriction Act is not a trespasser and does not become one until he
disobeys an order of the court ordering him to give up possession. Strictly
speaking therefore rent should be claimed up to the date of the order of
possession and mesne profits thereafter. In practice it is immaterial whether
the claim is labelled rent or mesne profits as there is usually no monetary
difference between rent and mesne profits”.
The
decision above appeared to have been based on the Rent Restriction Act which was
the applicable law at that time. However, Section 18(2) of the Rent
Control Law 1976 (Lagos) suggests that the two items of claim may be different.
It provides as follows:
decision above appeared to have been based on the Rent Restriction Act which was
the applicable law at that time. However, Section 18(2) of the Rent
Control Law 1976 (Lagos) suggests that the two items of claim may be different.
It provides as follows:
“If mesne profits are claimed and the
writ or plaint shows that the rate at which such mesne profits are claimed
is the same as the standard rent of the premises, judgment shall be entered for
the ascertained amount as liquidated claim and if the mesne profits are claimed
at the rate of the said rent up to the time of obtaining possession the
judgment shall be extended to include such claim and shall be a second
alternative in Form J”.
writ or plaint shows that the rate at which such mesne profits are claimed
is the same as the standard rent of the premises, judgment shall be entered for
the ascertained amount as liquidated claim and if the mesne profits are claimed
at the rate of the said rent up to the time of obtaining possession the
judgment shall be extended to include such claim and shall be a second
alternative in Form J”.
Further,
the learned Chief Judge stated that mesne profits are recoverable, not from the
determination of the tenancy, but from the date the tenant is ordered to vacate
possession by a competent court. But the provisions of the rent control
statutes are to the contrary. For example, Section
13 of the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Act, Abuja provides that the
amount claimed under any writ or plaint for arrears of rent and mesne profit
shall be treated as one claim[19].
the learned Chief Judge stated that mesne profits are recoverable, not from the
determination of the tenancy, but from the date the tenant is ordered to vacate
possession by a competent court. But the provisions of the rent control
statutes are to the contrary. For example, Section
13 of the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Act, Abuja provides that the
amount claimed under any writ or plaint for arrears of rent and mesne profit
shall be treated as one claim[19].
The
above law clearly states that mesne profits, may and can be claimed from the
determination of the tenancy or any day appointed for hearing, or any day named
in the plaint. In other words, it must not be from the date of judgement.
above law clearly states that mesne profits, may and can be claimed from the
determination of the tenancy or any day appointed for hearing, or any day named
in the plaint. In other words, it must not be from the date of judgement.
In
Adebajo Vs Tennessee Nig Ltd[20] a tenant who was
granted a one-year term with expiry in January 1966 failed to surrender the key
until August 1966. The Supreme Court held that the landlord was entitled to
compensation for the tenant’s use and occupation of the premises from February
to August 1966. Elias CJN (as he then was) observed:
Adebajo Vs Tennessee Nig Ltd[20] a tenant who was
granted a one-year term with expiry in January 1966 failed to surrender the key
until August 1966. The Supreme Court held that the landlord was entitled to
compensation for the tenant’s use and occupation of the premises from February
to August 1966. Elias CJN (as he then was) observed:
“where a tenant holds over after the
expiration of lease he is liable to the landlord an amount adjudged by the
court to be due for the use and occupation of the premises concerned’.
expiration of lease he is liable to the landlord an amount adjudged by the
court to be due for the use and occupation of the premises concerned’.
In
Oshinfekun Vs Lana[21] a monthly tenant
held over after a valid determination of his tenancy. In an action to recover
possession, the landlord joined a claim for $108.65.8d as compensation for the
use and occupation of the premises during the period of 13 months he held over.
The landlord’s action was dismissed for claiming the wrong relief. This is
quite different from the decision handed down by Odesanya J in Dafe Vs Macaulay[22] where the
landlord claimed a sum as compensation for use and occupation instead of
arrears of rent. Although the learned Judge gave the landlord’s counsel a
swipe, he remarked;
Oshinfekun Vs Lana[21] a monthly tenant
held over after a valid determination of his tenancy. In an action to recover
possession, the landlord joined a claim for $108.65.8d as compensation for the
use and occupation of the premises during the period of 13 months he held over.
The landlord’s action was dismissed for claiming the wrong relief. This is
quite different from the decision handed down by Odesanya J in Dafe Vs Macaulay[22] where the
landlord claimed a sum as compensation for use and occupation instead of
arrears of rent. Although the learned Judge gave the landlord’s counsel a
swipe, he remarked;
‘The description of rent as money due
for use and occupation did not occasion and could not in any case have
occasioned any miscarriage of justice’
for use and occupation did not occasion and could not in any case have
occasioned any miscarriage of justice’
Notwithstanding
the argument that the tediously technical aspect of real property law should
not be permitted to adversely affect a landowner in his just claim, the law
still remains that the court cannot grant a relief which has not been asked by
the Claimant[23].
the argument that the tediously technical aspect of real property law should
not be permitted to adversely affect a landowner in his just claim, the law
still remains that the court cannot grant a relief which has not been asked by
the Claimant[23].
The Supreme Court in African Petroleum Ltd v. Owodunni[24]
while delivering the lead judgment succinctly explained the distinction thus:
while delivering the lead judgment succinctly explained the distinction thus:
“…In order to be
able to decide the second issue, it is necessary to consider the followings
namely:
able to decide the second issue, it is necessary to consider the followings
namely:
(i) Would the
plaintiff be entitled to mesne profit or to damages for use and occupation of
the premises? Or are the two expressions interchangeable?
plaintiff be entitled to mesne profit or to damages for use and occupation of
the premises? Or are the two expressions interchangeable?
(ii)When could
the claim for mesne profit or for damages for use and occupation properly begin
to run?
the claim for mesne profit or for damages for use and occupation properly begin
to run?
(iii) What is
the right measure?
the right measure?
Now According to
Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14th Ed.) at p. 652: “Mesne profits” are
the rents and profits which a trespasser has or might have received or made
during his occupation of the premises, and which therefore he must pay over to
the true owner as compensation for the tort which he has committed. A claim for
rent is therefore liquidated, while a claim for mesne profit is always
unliquidated.
Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14th Ed.) at p. 652: “Mesne profits” are
the rents and profits which a trespasser has or might have received or made
during his occupation of the premises, and which therefore he must pay over to
the true owner as compensation for the tort which he has committed. A claim for
rent is therefore liquidated, while a claim for mesne profit is always
unliquidated.
It follows
therefore that a claim for mesne profit is inappropriate when the occupier is
still a tenant. It can only be maintained when his tenancy has been duly
determined and he becomes a trespasser. In this respect, a statutory tenant
such as the defendant, though merely a protected tenant cannot properly be
adjudged to be liable for mesne profit unless and until his tenancy has been
duly determined according to law. On the other hand, where a tenant who entered
upon a premises lawfully occupies the land or premises of another without an agreement
with or consent by the true owner, what he has to pay is not rent, because as
there is no longer a demise, he no longer has an estate, he will not pay mesne
profit because he is not a trespasser. Rather, he will be liable for damages
for his use and occupation of the land or premises. The action arises out of an
implied agreement to pay out of what may be called a quasi – tenancy rather
than a relationship between a landlord and a tenant (see Woodfall: On Landlord and Tenant (21st Ed.) p.666. See also Rochester (Dean and Chapter v. Pierce) (1808) 1 Camp 466.
therefore that a claim for mesne profit is inappropriate when the occupier is
still a tenant. It can only be maintained when his tenancy has been duly
determined and he becomes a trespasser. In this respect, a statutory tenant
such as the defendant, though merely a protected tenant cannot properly be
adjudged to be liable for mesne profit unless and until his tenancy has been
duly determined according to law. On the other hand, where a tenant who entered
upon a premises lawfully occupies the land or premises of another without an agreement
with or consent by the true owner, what he has to pay is not rent, because as
there is no longer a demise, he no longer has an estate, he will not pay mesne
profit because he is not a trespasser. Rather, he will be liable for damages
for his use and occupation of the land or premises. The action arises out of an
implied agreement to pay out of what may be called a quasi – tenancy rather
than a relationship between a landlord and a tenant (see Woodfall: On Landlord and Tenant (21st Ed.) p.666. See also Rochester (Dean and Chapter v. Pierce) (1808) 1 Camp 466.
So, the
defendant would be liable for damages for use and occupation. He could not be
liable for mesne profits because the element of wrongful and tortuous
occupation was absent. In the circumstances, for the Court of Appeal to have
made an award as “mesne profits for use and occupation” was an error.
But it did not lead to a miscarriage of justice”.
defendant would be liable for damages for use and occupation. He could not be
liable for mesne profits because the element of wrongful and tortuous
occupation was absent. In the circumstances, for the Court of Appeal to have
made an award as “mesne profits for use and occupation” was an error.
But it did not lead to a miscarriage of justice”.
The court also went
further to make a fine distinction between the commencement date for calculating
mesne profits and damages for use and occupation. The apex court held thus[25]:
further to make a fine distinction between the commencement date for calculating
mesne profits and damages for use and occupation. The apex court held thus[25]:
“Another area of
difference between mesne profits and damages for use and occupation is the date
of commencement. Mesne profits start to run from the date of service of the
process for determining the tenancy (see Canas Property Co. Ltd. v. K.L. Television Services Ltd. (1970) 2 Q.B. 433. But damages for use and occupation
start to run from the date of holding over the property, the function of the
court being to ascertain an amount which may constitute a reasonable
satisfaction for the use and occupation of the premises held over by the
tenant. The previous rent may sometimes be a guide, but may not be
conclusive.”.
difference between mesne profits and damages for use and occupation is the date
of commencement. Mesne profits start to run from the date of service of the
process for determining the tenancy (see Canas Property Co. Ltd. v. K.L. Television Services Ltd. (1970) 2 Q.B. 433. But damages for use and occupation
start to run from the date of holding over the property, the function of the
court being to ascertain an amount which may constitute a reasonable
satisfaction for the use and occupation of the premises held over by the
tenant. The previous rent may sometimes be a guide, but may not be
conclusive.”.
From the plethora of judicial
authorities cited above, there are clear distinctions between these two
concepts and pitiably, they are yet to be appreciated by subsequent
legislations and lower courts despite the established doctrine of stare decisis[26].
authorities cited above, there are clear distinctions between these two
concepts and pitiably, they are yet to be appreciated by subsequent
legislations and lower courts despite the established doctrine of stare decisis[26].
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is noteworthy that these two heads of
claim need to be redefined from the current statutory and judicial
interpretation which fail to actually create a laudable distinction. The laws
should be revised to actually make damages for use and occupation apply when
the tenant holds over at the expiration of the contractual and statutory
tenancy. The reason for this suggestion is that damages for use and occupation
should be calculated against a trespasser at a higher rate putting into
consideration the going rate in similar apartments and also to place a penalty
in the form of a high interest rate from the period of holding over till delivery
of judgment.
claim need to be redefined from the current statutory and judicial
interpretation which fail to actually create a laudable distinction. The laws
should be revised to actually make damages for use and occupation apply when
the tenant holds over at the expiration of the contractual and statutory
tenancy. The reason for this suggestion is that damages for use and occupation
should be calculated against a trespasser at a higher rate putting into
consideration the going rate in similar apartments and also to place a penalty
in the form of a high interest rate from the period of holding over till delivery
of judgment.
Alternatively,
parties to any agreement relating to land or property may insert provisions in
the agreement which will expressly state the consequences of holding over to
include the mode of computation of damages for use and occupation. This is a
more reliable and effective way to prevent tenants or occupiers from holding
over after the expiration of their tenancy and not having to pay adequate compensation
to the landlord/landowner after several years of litigation.
parties to any agreement relating to land or property may insert provisions in
the agreement which will expressly state the consequences of holding over to
include the mode of computation of damages for use and occupation. This is a
more reliable and effective way to prevent tenants or occupiers from holding
over after the expiration of their tenancy and not having to pay adequate compensation
to the landlord/landowner after several years of litigation.
By: Tanimola
Anjorin
Anjorin
[1] Tanimola
Anjorin holds a bachelor’s degree in History
and International Studies from Lagos State University. He thereafter obtained a
Bachelor of Laws degree from Lagos State University and was called to the
Nigerian Bar. He is also an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
(UK) Nigeria Branch.
Anjorin holds a bachelor’s degree in History
and International Studies from Lagos State University. He thereafter obtained a
Bachelor of Laws degree from Lagos State University and was called to the
Nigerian Bar. He is also an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
(UK) Nigeria Branch.
[2] The applicable law is the Recovery of Premises Law of the various
states. For the purpose of this paper, I shall consider the laws of Lagos, Rivers
States and Abuja.
states. For the purpose of this paper, I shall consider the laws of Lagos, Rivers
States and Abuja.
[3] The requirement for tenancy under the law is lawful occupation. See
Ibiyemi Odunje v Nigerian Airways Ltd
(1987) NWLR Pt. 55 P.126
Ibiyemi Odunje v Nigerian Airways Ltd
(1987) NWLR Pt. 55 P.126
[4] There are corresponding provisions in the interpretation sections
of the Recovery of Premises Law of other states.
of the Recovery of Premises Law of other states.
[5] A tenancy is said to be contractual where the consent of the
landlord is granted and statutory where the tenancy is necessitated by
operation of law.
landlord is granted and statutory where the tenancy is necessitated by
operation of law.
[6] See Omotosho v Oloriegbe
(1988) 4 NWLR Pt. 87; 225
(1988) 4 NWLR Pt. 87; 225
[7] (1991) 8 NWLR Pt 210 P. 418 Para B
[8] . Section 101 (1) of Landlord and Tenant Law Cap 75 Laws
of Rivers State, 1988 and section105(1) of Recovery of Premises Law, Kaduna
State
of Rivers State, 1988 and section105(1) of Recovery of Premises Law, Kaduna
State
[9] Section 105 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Cap 75 Laws of Rivers
State, 1999 and section 109 of the Kaduna State Law
State, 1999 and section 109 of the Kaduna State Law
[10] See section 101 and 102 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Cap 75 Laws
of Rivers State, 1999; Section 31 of the Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011
of Rivers State, 1999; Section 31 of the Lagos State Tenancy Law 2011
[11] (1982) 9 SC at p.13
[12] The Supreme Court per Ariwoola JSC in Ayinde v Lawal &Ors (1994) 7 NWLR Pt. 356 p. 263 held that: “
…It is the duty of the court to ascertain an amount which may constitute a reasonable
satisfaction for the use and occupation of the premises held over by the
tenant. It has been held that while previous rent may not be conclusive, it may
sometimes be a guide…”
…It is the duty of the court to ascertain an amount which may constitute a reasonable
satisfaction for the use and occupation of the premises held over by the
tenant. It has been held that while previous rent may not be conclusive, it may
sometimes be a guide…”
[13] Landlord and Tenant Law Cap 75 Laws of Rivers State,
1999
1999
[14] Section 102 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Cap 75
Laws of Rivers State, 1999 provides for who is liable for payment for use and
occupation
Laws of Rivers State, 1999 provides for who is liable for payment for use and
occupation
[15] Smith, I. O The
Status and Liability of a Tenant Holding Over Under the Rent Control &
Recovery of Premises Law in Nigeria (1992)3 Nos (9-10)
Status and Liability of a Tenant Holding Over Under the Rent Control &
Recovery of Premises Law in Nigeria (1992)3 Nos (9-10)
[16] A trespasser is a person in wrongful occupation of land or premises
and does not acquire lawful occupation by his act of trespass.
and does not acquire lawful occupation by his act of trespass.
[17] Anyanwu v Sangosanya:
Suit No. MCY/2491/15 (Unreported) where the claim was made for possession and mesne
profits at the agreed rent from the determination of the tenancy until
possession is given up.
Suit No. MCY/2491/15 (Unreported) where the claim was made for possession and mesne
profits at the agreed rent from the determination of the tenancy until
possession is given up.
[19] This is a faulty legislation which needs to be revised
so as to appreciate the clear distinction between these two separate claims.
See also Section
20 of the then Rent Control Law of Lagos 1976 which contains similar
provisions.
so as to appreciate the clear distinction between these two separate claims.
See also Section
20 of the then Rent Control Law of Lagos 1976 which contains similar
provisions.
[20] (1974) 1 ALLNLR 24
[21] (1958) WNLR 122
[23] Ativie v
Kabelmetal Nig Ltd. (2008) 10 NWLR Pt. 1095 P. 309
Kabelmetal Nig Ltd. (2008) 10 NWLR Pt. 1095 P. 309
[25] African
Petroleum v Owodunni (Supra)
Petroleum v Owodunni (Supra)
[26] Stare decisis et non queta movere – stand by what has
been decided and not to disturb and unsettle things which are established. See Adesokan v Adetunji (1994) 5 NWLR Pt.
345; Okeke v Okoli (2000) 7 NWLR Pt.
642 p. 654 Para D-F
been decided and not to disturb and unsettle things which are established. See Adesokan v Adetunji (1994) 5 NWLR Pt.
345; Okeke v Okoli (2000) 7 NWLR Pt.
642 p. 654 Para D-F