THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TENANT AND A LICENSEE
Apart from the owner of a property, there are other classes of persons who have the opportunity to stay on a property. Two of such classes of persons are tenants (lessees) and licensees. Even though these two classes may be similar, they actually differ in the kind of rights they can claim concerning a property. We’ll find out the differences between a tenant and a licensee in the case of Sheka v. Bashari (2013) LPELR-21403(CA).
Alhaji Sheka sued Alhaji Bashari at the High Court of Kano State. The dispute revolved around a shop located at Fagge Takudu in Kano. Alhaji Bashari was Managing Agent of the shop and he had been managing the shop for many years.
According to Alhaji Sheka, he leased and rented the said shop many years ago together with one late Hajia Maryam Siala and that both of them used the shop for their business of selling textile materials until Hajia Siala died. He claimed that he paid a yearly rent of N200, 000 to Alhaji Bashari since he became a tenant in the shop.
He alleged that in 2008, Alhaji Bashari used the Police to forcibly eject him from the shop, without issuing him the required Notice to Quit as demanded by law. He also claimed that Alhaji Bashari seized and detained the goods in his shop which were worth 1.5 million naira.
He therefore asked the court to declare that Alhaji Bashari’s action was unlawful and that as a lessee (a tenant), he had the right to be served a Notice to Quit. He also asked the court to order Alhaji Bashari to pay him the 1.5 million naira value of his goods that were seized and also to pay him 2 million naira as general damages for trespass.
On his own part, Alhaji Bashari maintained that Alhaji Sheka was not entitled to any notice from him as there was no tenancy relationship whatsoever between them. His story was that he leased the shop to one Mustapha Siala through a tenancy agreement and that when he died, his wife, Hajia Maryam Siala took over the tenancy. He also explained that Alhaji Sheka was only a salesman working for Mustapha Siala and his wife, Hajia Siala. He claimed that by the time Hajia Siala died, she had no children of her own, and so, in her Will, she left behind all her property, including the items in the shop, to her sister Najala Mustapha and her three children.
He maintained that he actually recovered possession of the shop by instituting an action at the Magistrate Court against Najala Mohammed, who was the true owner of the estate of Hajia Maryam Siala. It was when the court gave judgment in his favour that the officials of the court came to the shop to eject Alhaji Sheka and detain his goods in the custody of the court.
At the end of the matter, the High Court gave judgment in favour of Alhaji Bashari, holding that he was not a tenant of Alhaji Bashari, and as such was not entitled to any damages. Dissatisfied, Alhaji Sheka went to the Court of Appeal.
At the Court of Appeal, the major issue of contention was whether Alhaji Sheka was a proper tenant in the shop and whether he was entitled to be given the statutory Notice to Quit instead of being ejected without notice.
Before the court, Alhaji Sheka claimed that since he was in lawful possession and occupation of the shop, there need not be a landlord/tenant relationship or tenancy agreement between them. He asserted that the qualification for becoming a tenant is lawful occupation and whenever the initial entry is lawful, such occupier becomes a tenant. He maintained that he was entitled to be given the necessary statutory notices before the landlord could recover possession from him.
On his part, Alhaji Bashari maintained that Alhaji Sheka was not his tenant and that his proper tenant was Najala Mustapha, whom he had served with the proper notices and taken to court to recover possession of the shop.
