Landlord & Tenant

In the instant case, as I have said, an application by the respondents was still pending before the court of law when the appellants went and took over possession of the premises. A landlord who resorts to self-help in a bid to recover possession of the premises tenanted by him runs foul of the law and he is liable in damages. See (1) Eliochin Nig Ltd v. Mabadiwe(1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 14) 47, (2) Ihenacho v. Uzochukwu (1997) 2 NWLR (pt.487) 257 and (3) Mil. Gov. of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 2 S.C. 277. The law is common place that a claim for damages for trespass is at the instance of a person in lawful possession of the land such as in the instant case where the occupation of the premises by the respondents has the backing of the law. Therefore, the act of forceful entry into the premises and the subsequent eviction of the occupants together with their property is one of clear case of trespass for which damages ought to be paid by the appellant to the respondents.

Judicial authorities abound that it has always been a doctrine common to all courts and the doctrine rests upon the foundation that it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit or even motion or application could be brought to a successful end if alienation pendente lite were permitted to prevail. This, in a nutshell, is a practical explanation of the doctrine of 'lis pendens' – which doctrine prevents the effective transfer of rights in any property, as in the instant case, which is the subject-matter of an action pending in court during the pendency in court of the action or application. I pause to say that a landlord can unilaterally take possession of a premises tenanted by him if he can do so peacefully upon the termination of the tenancy. See (I) A.P. Ltd v. Owodunni(1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.210) 391 and Aglim BV v. Cohim (1995) 1AER 785.The overriding condition to do so is lawfully come to an end.