Before the First and Second World War the relationship between tenant and tenant was abusive and exploitative; the landlord exercised enormous powers and exercised over the tenant. He had the right to expel his tenant at any time, for no reason through violence or other self-help. There was no obligation to inform the tenant of his intention to terminate the rent or to restore his estate. In addition, the lessor may unilaterally increase the rents paid by the tenant and the tenant has to pay the increased rent or get out of the house. The tenant did not have the possibility to question the increase in rents, although it was arbitrary or unreasonable. Tenants made this oppression, exploitation and abuse by tenants necessary to accept landlords and tenant laws to protect tenants from the high rank of landlords.
Currently, tenants have many protection under these laws. In Nigeria, the legislator has adopted legislation on both the federal and state level to regulate tenant-tenant relations. Examples of these fundamentals are in Nigeria, the Lagos State Rental Act 2011, the Revocation of the Act on the Reservation, and the rental and restoration of the statutes of Abuja and the various Nigerian states. Thanks to the adoption and implementation of these laws, it is now illegal and is in fact a criminal offense that evokes violence or attempts to expel the tenant from the legitimate occupation of any premises by force. A landlord who wishes to regain possession of a tenant's estate must request a court to recover his place from the tenant. (Article 16 and 44 (1) of the Lagos State Law). Under these laws, the tenant may now question the possible increase in rent that he judges to be high, unjustified or arbitrary. (Section 37 of the Lagos State Rent Law).
More importantly, under the terms of these laws, the landlord is obliged and obliged to provide tenants with an intention to terminate the lease and his intention to dispose of his property in court. For example, Section 13 of the Lagos State's 2011 Law provides that, unless there is a stipulation that one of the parties is obliged to determine a regular rental contract, the following shall apply: –
(a) the tenant will notify;
(b) a month (1) month notice to the lessee;
(c) three (3) months notice to a quarterly tenant
(d) a notice of three (3) months to a semi-annual lessee; and
e) half-year notice for one-year tenant
In addition to the abovementioned notices, the lessor is obliged to call the tenant for seven (7) days to hold their premises. In addition, a tenant with a fixed-term lease agreement needs seven (7) advertised owners to apply for a court order (see Article 13 (5) of Lagos State's lease). Again, according to paragraph 14 of the Lagos State's 2011 lease, the holder of a permit on the site is entitled to the owner's intention with a seven (7) day notice period for the owner's recovery by the licensee. It must be emphasized that requiring tenants to provide these legitimate notices to tenants and to prevent illegal or violent evictions
This desire to ensure the tenant's possession and defend it has resulted in illegal and violent evictions that are in Nigerian court rules or policies have been established that, since legitimate communications relate to the tenant's protection, any such errors, omissions, irregularities, errors, omissions or deviations that are minor or trivial with the issue, service, content or form of legitimate notice are invalid and are invalid. It is not just that any act, act, or command based on such invalid notification is null and void. According to Nigerian law, the restoration of the premises is very technical and strictly complies with the provisions of the law, otherwise the whole procedure will be void.
In specific cases, errors, omissions, errors, omissions, irregularities, or omissions made or committed in connection with the exit or 7 day notice that invalidate, destroy and violate them, but not exclusively to the following:
1. If the lessor's agent or lawyer issues legitimate communications, the failure of the lessor to authorize the agent or attorney in writing to release the notices will render such notices invalid and ineffective. Any act, act or appeal made on the basis of such notifications is neutral. See chapter 7 of the Law on Restoration of Rooms, Abuja, Rent Controls and Recovery of Premises Edict, Lagos, 1997, Chapter 13. See also: Wemabod Estate Ltd v. HORSE. Kotun (1977) 10 / CCHCJ / 2319, Shittu v. LEDB (1966) L.L.R. 102, Ayiwoh v. Akorede (1951) 20 N.L.R4, Coker v. Adetayo (1992) 6 N.W.L.R pt 249, p. 612
2. If the notice of termination is less than or less than the statutory term of notice, or shorter / less than the period set by the parties. See the decision of the Supreme Court in Oyekoya v GBO Nig. Ltd. (1969) 6, NSCC 69, Awoniyi & sons. Igbalaiye Brothers (1965) ALL NLR 169, Dominic Nnadozie v Anthony Oluoma (1963) ENLR 77, MN Ugochukwu and his sons v.Buraimah (1963) All 561 NLR
3. Abuja and some states that are not Lagos, where the cancellation notice does not fall on the eve of the rental anniversary, is invalid and null. See Papersack (Nig) Ltd v. Odutola (2004) 13 N.W.L.R. 891, p. 509, Owoade v Texaco Africa Ltd. (1973) 4 NSCC 61. See also UIC v Harmond Nig. Ltd. (1998) 9 NWLR pt. 565, p.340
4. The date of expiry of the notice of exit must be correctly indicated in the notice of termination or the notification becomes invalid. Inserting the wrong date will invalidate the ad. See Adejumo v. David Hughes & Co. Ltd (1989) 5 NWLR pt.120, p.146 5.
Incorrect description of the building or failure to describe the site. See Oshodi v. Okafo (1975) on CCHCJ 1093, Kuye v. Nwogbo (1978) 7CCHCJ 1073
6. Failure to observe the prescribed form or failure or omission that the information or information specified in the notice is required by law. A Fasade v. Nwabunike (1974) 12 CCHCJ In 1865, the notice abandoned the words "possessed", the notice was considered void
. Descriptive description of the tenant. It must describe the tenant in accordance with the notice and any errors in this regard render the advertisement invalid; see Nigerian Joint Agency Ltd. V. Match Co Ltd. (1972) NMLR
8. An exact or improper description of the nature of the lease. If an annual lease is described as a monthly lease or if the notice does not specify the nature of the lease at all, the notice would be void. See Olaoye v. Mandilas (1949) affairs 19 NLR 59 Giwa v fagbeyisa (1975) 10 CCHCJ 16
The court rule or policy is unfortunate that mistakes, errors, omissions or deviations are the release, service, content and form of legal notices invalidate such notices, and the nullity is to delay and frustrate the lessor's right to recover possession of the site. The vulnerability or inclination of legal notices, in particular the notice of cancellation or nullity of notice of invalidity, provides for unscrupulous tenants who are unwilling to give concessions after expiration of their mandate, due to mild or trivial failures or omissions, to prevent and delay the plain and the case quick court decision.
Using late tactics, tenants extend their holdings at the expense of their landlords. Landlords have suffered and continue to suffer and suffer serious losses, injustices and difficulties due to the rigid, inflexible and unfair attitudes of the Nigerian courts. Tenants' tenure is criticized for many rental fees due to trivial or slight errors, errors or omissions in the issuance, provision, content or form of legal communications. It's not uncommon for a judge to drop the landlord's case and ask him to re-enforce legitimate announcements to the tenant. The usual practice between tenants and their lawyers also unnecessarily extends the case and thus extended the possession / possession of the premises by appeal proceedings on the ground that the legal notices concerning the tenant are invalid. In many cases, the Nigerian courts maintain their appeal and decide that the judgment given to the landlord in favor of the lower court is erroneous and therefore null and void.
It is a legitimate law that the main purpose of the notice is the attention of the person to whom the announcement has had certain facts, information or situation. This fact is generally ignored by the Nigerian courts. In all cases where the notices were deemed invalid due to trivial errors, it was irrelevant that the lessee might have understood the content and effect of the notification of delivery and did not in any way misrepresent the error or error in the notification. In other words, the fact that the tenant has not suffered any loss, damage or injustice due to errors or omissions in the notice is generally not considered by the Nigerian courts. This unduly rigid and inflexible attitude of the Nigerian courts is counter-productive, unfair and disadvantageous for the recovery of possession of landowners for the rights of landlords.
This judicial policy gives rise to grave injustice to landlords in the event of strict or serious procedural formalities, permits the landlords, justice and unscrupulous tenants to deceive, deceive and exploit landlords. In the light of the foregoing, it is essential to discuss and examine what is most important to determine the validity of statutory communications in Nigeria, particularly in the exit notification.
Our argument that a fair test or standard is the validity of the notice of termination should not strictly comply with procedural formalities. This is because this approach does not make exceptions in cases where the tenant has a notice of notice which contains errors or errors, but does not in fact mislead, injure or otherwise violate such errors or mistakes. We assume that if the court finds that the tenant has fully understood the purpose and effect of a notification and that the defamation or the errors or errors contained therein are not otherwise violated, the court must maintain the validity of the notice despite the mistakes. Therefore, as long as the tenant does not suffer any damage, loss, injustice, injury or prejudice due to a failure or error in the notice of termination, the courts must consider such notifications as valid and effective. Notifications of mistakes or irregularities can only be void if the tenant is misled or suffered loss, injury, damage or injustice due to such errors or irregularities.
Proposition and essential justice are not alien to Nigerian laws. Indeed, the long-term policy of the Nigerian courts is that the courts do not emphasize the strict adherence to procedural formalities at the expense of the great justice. In a number of cases, the Nigerian courts have condemned the intention of litigants and their lawyers to apply judicial / legal technical rules against the proper settlement of court disputes. See Ayankoya v. Olukoya (1996) 2 SCNJ 292 on pages 305 by Adio, JSC, Afolabi v. Adekunle (1983) ANLR p.470 481, State v.Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR 142 page 160 for Eso JSC, AG Alliance v AG Abia State (2001) 11 NWLR pt 725 p.689. The essence of all these decisions is that the techniques should not be used to overcome the end of the judiciary, that the cases should not be decided on the basis of technical nature, but they are deciding on their merits. Oputa, according to JSC, Aliu Bello and 13 Others v. AG Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR pt. 45528, p.528, p.886 EG,
"The image of the law and its technical rules is victorious and justice is indescribable, but justice does not exist in forms and formalities, and the victory of the justice justice can not be found successfully in technical pitfalls " Furthermore, Nipol Ltd v. For Bioku Investment & Property Co Ltd (1992) 3 NWLR pt232 p. 727 Olatawura, JSC, said that
"The justice of justice puts an end to justice and denied justice to a litigant party without a court hearing and justice for all reasons refuses to administer the administration of justice to hear and determine the case for merit as merely making the court a vice shield. "
Despite these noble and exalted court declarations, the courts have consistently failed to overlook the techniques and strict adherence to it. procedural formalities and significant justice for the validity of the exit.
Unlike Nigerian clients, however, English judges use a flexible approach when deciding whether exit is valid or not. This approach involves initiating an investigation or establishing whether the error notification has actually misled, embarrassed, or embarrassed the addressee. In other words, did the error in question distinguish between the recipient's understanding or conduct? In England where the faulty notifier has been unable to cure the error, it typically wants to defend the observation in four ways:
1. He claims that the intended effect of the notification would be perfectly clear to any reasonable recipient (referred to as Mannai's defense)
. It claims that the error was corrected elsewhere in the notice or in another document, often a cover letter (also known as the "mail protection")
. He argues that the notice is "substantially similar" to the form prescribed (also known as "similar effect protection").
4th It argues that the error in question is mere inaccuracy in the necessary data, which does not invalidate the notice ("pure inaccuracy").
The beneficiary protection to be considered
Mannai v. Eagle Star (1997) 1 For EGLR 57, the Lords House, Garston v. Scottish Widows (1998)) 2 The EGLR 73 and York v Cassey (1998) 2 EGLR 25, which was ruled by the English Court of Appeal, even after the expiry of the notices of service, the courts held that these notices were valid because reasonable supporter, the lease would have no doubt that the announcer's intention is to set the rental fee on the correct date. The court considered that all unilateral communications were valid if they were sufficiently clear to reasonably justify the reasonable behavior of how and when they intend to operate. However, if the defective notification causes confusion and confusion, the notice is considered invalid. This was the position of the English Courts in Panayi v. Roberts (1993) 2EGLR 51, Clickex v. McCann (1999) 2HLR 6324 and Barclays v. Bee (2001) 37 EG 153.
. (also known as Mannai's defense) considered that it should not apply to notifications for which a statutory provision should contain specific information. Failure or omission of certain items or information contained in the notice will invalidate the same. It should be noted that the Mannai protection applies only if this is not an absolute prerequisite for effective exercise of the right to include specific information in the notice. See John Lyon Grammar School v. Secchi (1999) 32 HLR 820, Dalziel v. Speedwell Estates Ltd (2002) 02 EG 104, Burman v. Mount Cook (2001), EWCA Civ.1712 and St. Ermin's Property Company Ltd Patel (2001) L & TR 537.
Protecting Cover Letter:
As we've already pointed out, the defective notification in England may raise your defense by making the defect or deficiencies of the notification spared by reference to a statement in a notice or a cover letter. Thus, the release of the signature in the notice has been cured by signing a cover letter. In addition, the inclusion of an incorrect date of termination was considered to be remedied under the terms of a cover letter. See Stidolp v. American School (1969) 20 P & CR 802 affair. Germax Securities Ltd v. Speigal (1999) 1 EGLR 84 and York v.
The law governing most forms of advertising generally requires that any deviation from the form prescribed does not invalidate the notice until the notice has substantially the same effect. The English Courts consider that a notification other than the form prescribed is not incorrect or invalid if the words used are essentially the same as the words used. This is especially the case if the notice did not mislead or otherwise hinder the tenant. See Andrew v. Brewer (1997) EGCS affairs. 19. Tadema Holdings Ltd v. Fergusion (1999) EGCS 138, Ravenseft Properties Ltd v. Hall (2001) 13 EGCS 125.
It should be noted that it is also available in Nigeria. See Section 31 (1) of the Act on Reservation, Abuja. Section 23 of the Interpretation Act stipulates that a form other than the prescribed form shall be deemed void only on the grounds of the difference if the difference is not material and does not constitute misleading. Adejumo v David Hughes & Co Ltd, above and Bucknor-Maclean & Anor. V. Inlaks Ltd (1980) ANLR 184, the Supreme Court found that the notices or forms which, to a small extent but essentially different from the prescribed form, were not valid and legally valid. However, Fasade v. Nwabunike (1974) 12 In the case of CCHCJ 1865, the notice was considered ineffective as the notice had abandoned the word "in possession of it" as prescribed by law.
In England, courts find that when a law requires certain particulars to be provided, the notice is not invalidated by any inaccuracies in the data used or by the misinterpretation of the ownership of the property that is the subject of the claim. However, in legislative notifications, the question is what the statute is. Errors in the form of the form that are not relevant to the circumstances does not matter, but the notification must be valid, fully and accurately defining the details required to perform the statutory tasks. See "Comments: When the Error Is Not An Error?" Jonathan Gaunt and Nichola Cheffings for a more detailed discussion of the English Law on Wrong Announcements
In summary, the rule of the Nigerian Law that any noticeable error, no matter how trivial, proves invalid. If a failure or omission in a notice does not mislead or disturb the tenant, the notification should not be invalidated. The Nigerian courts must always check whether the tenant understands the purpose and effect of the notice and whether the tenant has actually misled or mistaken the mistake or omission contained therein. Thus unscrupulous tenants prevent the frustration and exploitation of their landlords.
Managing Director of the Nigerian Joint Agency Agent. V. Arrow Engineering and General Transport Company (1970) 1 ALL NLR 324 hopes that Nigerian courts will stop the sacrifice of justice at the altar of the technology. In that case, the date on which the lease was terminated on 1 June 1967 was incorrectly granted on 31 May 1967 at the seven-day notice period. But the supreme one considered the note to be valid. The Supreme Court is convinced that while the applicants were required to indicate the date of the determination of the lease by 31 May 1967, the defendants did not in any way affect the applicants' acts so that a day later, on 1 June 1967
Source by sbobet