Background
This appeal arises from a tenancy dispute originally heard by the Oredo Area Customary Court No.3, Benin City, which on 11 April 2013 struck out the landlord’s claim for recovery of possession and mesne profits on grounds of incompetence. The appellant, Emmanuel Aibangbe, as landlord, sued to evict the respondent, Mr. Fred Osolase, for arrears of rent and occupation of a four-bedroom duplex and staff quarters at No.6 Guobadia Street, G.R.A., Benin City. The customary court held that Osolase was not a statutory tenant under Section 2 of Bendel State Edict No.4 of 1977, that proper parties were not before it, and that essential statutory notices had not been validly served.
Aggrieved, Aibangbe filed Notice of Appeal (Appeal No. B/1A/2014) to the Edo State High Court on 5 March 2014, supported by an appellants’ brief. The respondent filed a written address in response on 11 April 2014, and the appellant replied on points of law on 27 May 2014. On 25 June 2014, only the respondent’s counsel appeared and adopted his written address. The appellant failed to attend, and the trial judge of the High Court was required to consider whether non-appearance warranted striking out the appeal under Order 55 of the Edo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
Issues
- Whether the trial Area Customary Court rightly held that it lacked jurisdiction and that the suit was incompetent, having regard to tenancy definitions in the Edict, the contract of tenancy, and the defective service of statutory notices.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded costs against the appellant despite no specific claim for costs by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
- Jurisdiction is fundamental and can only be invoked by strict compliance with statutory conditions precedent, including valid service of six-month and seven-day notices under Section 2 (formerly Section 2) of the Bendel State Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Edict No.4 of 1977. Defective service on the tenant nullifies jurisdiction and renders the claim incompetent.
- Under the same Edict, a "tenant" includes any person in lawful occupation of premises, whether paying rent or otherwise, excluding only those claiming bona fide ownership. However, entitlement to sue depends on statutory notice requirements.
- The award of costs lies within the court’s discretion and may be made as a consequential order even if not specifically claimed, provided it compensates the successful party and follows the event.
Court Findings
The High Court found that:
- The appellant diligently filed all appeal processes but failed to appear on the hearing date. Rule 10(1) of Order 55 permits striking out an appeal for non-appearance unless sufficient cause is shown. The judge held that the appellant’s failure to appear did not defeat substantive justice in light of filed briefs.
- Evidence before the customary court established that Freeland International Company Ltd, not Osolase personally, entered the tenancy contract. Exhibit F (receipt) and witness testimony confirmed this relationship. The court correctly held that Osolase was not the contractual tenant.
- Osolase nevertheless occupied the premises and thus qualified as a statutory tenant under Section 2 of the Edict. The court, however, noted that the appellant failed to prove valid service of the six-month and seven-day notices as required. There was no dispatch book, no proof of registered post, and no credible witness to establish service. Hence the customary court lacked jurisdiction.
- The High Court affirmed that due service of statutory notices is a condition precedent to a claim and that failure to comply renders the proceedings a nullity.
- The trial court’s award of N3,000 in costs was a lawful exercise of discretion to compensate the respondent for an incompetent claim; the High Court substituted N10,000 as reasonable costs for the appeal.
Conclusion
The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. The judgment of the customary court, striking out the claim for want of jurisdiction, is affirmed. The appellant is ordered to pay N10,000 as costs of the appeal.
Significance
This decision underscores the strict requirement of service of statutory notices under Edo State’s Rent Control Edict as conditions precedent to jurisdiction. It clarifies the definition of statutory tenant–"any person in lawful occupation"–and reaffirms the court’s discretion to award costs as consequential relief, even when not expressly claimed. The ruling balances procedural compliance with the overriding objective of substantive justice in appellate proceedings.