Odutola v Papersack |Locus Classicus | Bar Talk with Ola Episode |Judicial Precedence

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]Hi, I welcome you back to Battle of Quit Land. My name is Mojolaoluwa and I'm so thrilled to be here once again. Super duper thrilled because today is a judicial precedence episode. We are discussing Odutola and Adebayo Sack.

[00:00:13]It's a locus classicus when it comes to recovery of premises in Nigeria and I'm so excited to talk about it. I don't know about you, but when I talk about or read about or discuss or apply or use cases wherein I can identify persons, you know, places that are familiar to me, it's very exciting for me. For instance, I recall that when we learned about Ooni Boys and UBN in the Nigerian Law School, I remember that shortly after I went to Ilorin to sign my bench house form at Chief Afe Babalola & Co. And I saw Ooni Boys boldly written on a big building along the road. I was so excited to see it. Today, anytime I hear Ooni Boys or I think of Ooni Boys, I think about that building. And because of that, I won't forget easily.

[00:01:03]I don't know if I've mentioned Lung and FBN. We'll talk about it also later on the channel.

[00:01:08]My bunkmate in 100 level, her surname uh then was Lung. So, >> [laughter] >> I can't forget Lung and FBN cuz anytime I think about it or talk about it, I remember. I recall also there was a time that I was talking about Garba and University of Maiduguri on social media and a lawyer commented that he was part of you know, it's Garba and others, Garba and others versus University of Maiduguri. So, [snorts] a lawyer commented and said that he was part of those others.

[00:01:41]I think his name was Mahmud or Muhammad.

[00:01:45]So, he said he was part of those people and that he was garnishing me that represented them and litigated the matter successfully up to the Supreme Court. We've talked about uh case on the channel. Please watch it because it's one of the cases that are so dear to my heart because that's the first locus classicus, the first Nigerian case that I went to the library, picked up a law report, and read at the direction of my senior then senior Tola Adewunmi. So, please uh maybe this might be instructive for you, especially if you're a law student. So, attach um decided cases to familiar places and names of persons and people, you know, that you hear in that case or that you read about. It might serve as a mnemonic sort of It might help you to remember uh easily. So, when we're talking about Odutola and Paper Sack, uh it's a case that happened at Eric Moore, Iganmu Road, Lagos. And uh Iganmu is a place that I've passed several times. So, you know, I would always remember it, and I would always remember Iganmu's Pastor Poju's church. That's where I think that's where the headquarters is, even though I've never been, but you know, they I always hear it when they are announcing, and uh I watch snippets of Pastor Pastor Poju online. So, the the National Theatre too is at Iganmu. When you're passing by Iganmu, you will see that theatre on the road from wherever you are. So, uh it's If you remember things like that, it might make it easy for you to remember the case and then the substance of it. Now, the uh protagonist in this matter is Alhadji Odutola. You may have a friend bearing Odutola. You may have a family member bearing Odutola. That may make it easy for you to remember whatever the case.

[00:03:35]Now, let's get into the case. What really happened in Odutola and Paper Sack? Uh it's a recovery of premises matter. So, Alhadji Odutola had a warehouse at number 44 Eric Moore Road, Iganmu, Lagos, and uh he let it out to a company called Tosin and Co. Nigeria Limited.

[00:03:51]Uh their uh, tenancy expired on May 31st, 1980.

[00:03:58]But, instead of them to return the possession, you know, we've talked about tenancy severally on this channel.

[00:04:04]There's even a playlist on tenancies, which I want you to go and check out if you haven't. We always say that possession goes to the tenant, whilst ownership remains and resides with the landlord during a tenancy. So, at the expiration of the tenancy, that possession returns to the landlord.

[00:04:22]That's what determines the tenancy. So, >> [snorts] >> instead of the possession to return to Aladji Odutola, uh, Tosin Letting or Putting another company. Now, Paper Sack and Tosin, they had a common director, you know, one of their directors, you know, was in both companies. So, for some reason, they reached an arrangement and Paper Sack moved in as soon as Tosin moved out. Now, Paper Sack does not have an agreement with Aladji Odutola. They are not original tenants and they do not have a lease agreement or a tenancy agreement. Now, they started discussing this at some point, but they never finalized. So, they continued to stay for several years and they were paying rent, you know, haphazardly. They were paying, uh, every now and then. There was nothing fixed, you know. So, each time they paid, Aladji Odutola would issue them a receipt. Then, they discussed a lease. They negotiated, but they did not reach a conclusion and did not execute, you know, a lease agreement. So, at some point, they were owing rent. They were not paying. Aladji Odutola now decided that he had had enough. They had to leave his property. So, since they would not leave, he now went to court to, uh, get an order. He He filed a writ of possession to evict them and to recover possession, to recover the arrears of rent and to recover means profit. We have videos on all of these terminologies and what they mean in tenancies. So, when you go to court, you won at the High Court. Then, uh Paper Sack then went to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, Paper Sack won. Now, the trial court had issued Odutola, you know, some They had awarded him arrears of rent for a certain period. They had awarded him means profit, you know, and they had calculated the period that the tenancy had actually lasted for. But, when they got to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the award, overturned the means profit. Then, they now decided that the rent that Odutola was asking for for a period of time, that he could not ask for it because there was no rent increment, formal rent increment, you know. Uh and so, he could not claim that rent. So, they set the rent at a certain figure. They calculated everything for him and then told Paper Sack, "Go and pay this sum." They asked Paper Sack to pay the sum of 1 million naira as the total arrears of rent owed to Odutola.

[00:06:58]They also overturned the means profit.

[00:07:01]Now, means profit is what you ask the court to award you against a tenant that holds over the property. Go and watch that video so that you know what it means if you don't. So, uh Odutola was dissatisfied. He then went to the Supreme Court. So, this is a Supreme Court judgment and that's why it's exciting. You know, everything ends at the Supreme Court, so it's a judgment that you can cite. There have been different developments in uh tenancies, recovery of possession in Nigeria, but Odutola and Paper Sack as at today, this is May 2026, remains relevant and citable. Uh a decision that you can rely on, you know, for recovery of possession. So, uh when they went to court, you know, what had initially caused their issue, one of the things that caused it was that Paper Sack was claiming that they were yearly tenant.

[00:07:53]Meanwhile, they were just paying sporadically, haphazardly. Now, Paper Sack now said, "No, we're a yearly tenant. We're entitled to 6 months notice if you want to get us out of your property." But Odetola had issued them a 7-day owner's intention to recover possession, which is what you issue a tenant at will or a tenant at sufferance. That's someone just living in your property without any fixed tenancy agreement with you. Now, you may know that they're living there. You may even be collecting rent from them, but it's not fixed. It is not periodic. You are It's It's not annual, you know.

[00:08:26]They're just paying, you know, as they please, and you you may recognize them even as tenants. But because it is not fixed or specified, they cannot enjoy the notice period that fixed tenancies enjoy that periodic tenancies enjoy. For instance, if you're a yearly tenant, you're indeed entitled to 6 months notice, which is what Paper Sack was now claiming that we're a yearly tenant, an annual tenant. You have to give us 6 months notice. This Alade Odetola was then saying, "No, you are a tenant at will. I only need to give you 7 day notice to say I want to use my property, my warehouse. Get out."

[00:09:03]So, they went to court and uh Odetola won.

[00:09:07]Then Paper Sack went to court of appeal and won. Then Odetola went to Supreme Court. And now, how did the Supreme Court decide this? That These are the facts of the case. Let's use FIRAC now.

[00:09:18]What's the issue for determination?

[00:09:20]There were two issues for determination.

[00:09:21]The first was whether a tenant who holds over at the end or expiration of a fixed tenancy by the payment of rent becomes a yearly tenant.

[00:09:37]Do you understand? Now, there's a fixed tenancy, maybe January to December 2025.

[00:09:44]That's uh the period for of the tenancy.

[00:09:47]Now, that period has lapsed. The money paid for that period has lapsed. Now, if a tenant continues to stay in the property after that and then decides to pay rent, does the payment of rent turn him into a yearly tenant without more?

[00:10:06]That's the first issue for determination. The second issue for determination was whether the respondent, uh who was the defendant, that's Paper Sack, whether they were now a yearly tenant or a tenant at will, in which case the court now had to decide whether they were entitled to 6 months' notice or whether the 7-day notice sufficed. So, these were the issues before the Supreme Court to decide. Now, facts, issues, uh ratio, reason for determination, applicable rule. Now, the rule established in this case, which is the rule that the court applied, is uh as follows. Regarding tenancy at will, the court held that tenancy at will uh implies or refers to a situation where, you know, a periodic tenancy has come to an end, for instance, a yearly tenancy has come to an end, and the tenant continues to stay in the property, or a situation where a tenant is staying in a property with the landlord's consent, but without any agreement as to the the specified period or the rent. That is tenancy at will. So, the court established that. The court also established that the payment of rent in that instance cannot transform it into a yearly tenant. So, if you're holding over, whether you had a you were a yearly tenant before, once that expires and there's no clear agreement as to rent and as to period between you and the landlord. Even if the landlord is collecting rent from you, you become a tenant at will. So, you can't be uh evicted. The process of eviction can't be kick-started by issuing you a 7-day owner's intention to recover possession. 7 clear days. I've explained how to do that, even how to draft it in some earlier videos. Please watch the playlist on tenancies. So, the court clarified three things. Tenancy at will, you are in the property with the landlord's consent. You're paying something, which is rent, but you have no fixed period. No fixed period. So, that kind of tenancy is tenancy at will or tenancy at sufferance. It can be determined at any time by issuing you a 7-day owner's intention to recover possession. Now, yearly tenancy. The court held that for yearly tenancy to be valid, there must be a clear agreement, usually evidenced in writing. But, even if it is not expressly documented, it must be clearly implied that you and the landlord intended to create a yearly tenancy. And there was a defined period and the rent to be paid. Now, the court also talked about holding over. Court held that if you're holding over and you're still paying rent, it doesn't continue a yearly tenancy that you had any periodic tenancy you had initially.

[00:13:02]Once that ends, even if you continue to pay rent and continue to stay in the property, it does not continue that tenancy. It has determined. If you want to continue that tenancy, it must be clearly agreed. You and the landlord must clearly agree. There must be no confusion. It must be clear that unequivocal that this is what you intended to create, this is the period for which uh would last, and this is the rent that you would pay. So, even if you continue to pay rent, it doesn't transform you into a yearly tenant or a periodic tenant, except it's clearly agreed. So, the court underlined the issue of agreement of the mind, consensus ad idem, which is the bedrock of contracts, to say that there must be an agreement, a meeting of the minds between you and the landlord that, "Oh, we intend to create a periodic tenancy.

[00:13:50]Oh, we intend to create uh a yearly tenancy." Not that we're just doing what we like, and because we're paying rent, treat us as a yearly tenant, give us 6 months notice. Not at all. Now, we're using Fire Akere, right? Let's look at the application in Udutola and Papersack of these rules. In Udutola and Papersack, the Supreme Court held per Justice Niki Tobi that payment of rent does not automatically create a yearly tenancy, and that in this case, you know, the tenants, Papersack, had even entered as intruders, interlopers, trespassers, because they were not the original tenants. But, because the landlord began to take rent from them, and he took notice of their possession, did not uh send them packing, that means he had recognized them as tenants. But, what kind of tenancy did he create? Tenancy at will, tenancy at sufferance, not yearly tenant. They did not come in to continue the term of Tosin or the agreement of Tosin. It was a fresh type of uh relationship. And even [snorts] though they came in as intruders, their payment of rent and their recognition as tenants by the landlord uh morphed them into tenants, but not yearly tenants, tenants at will. And that, since they're tenants at will, say 7-day notice suffices and is a valid means of kick-starting the eviction process. So, the court held in favor of Alhaji Udutola that he had done the right thing, you know, by issuing them a 7-day notice, and they were not entitled to 6 months notice like regular uh annual or yearly tenants. Also, you would recall that uh I noted earlier that they were negotiating a new lease. They never concluded. So, the court held that there was no agreement of the mind consensus to create a yearly tenancy because they were still negotiating. So, there was no document and there was no uh uh express or implied agreement to show that they had agreed on the term of the tenancy, the rent to be paid, the terms and conditions that would be applicable.

[00:15:50]So, it was an open-ended lease that was not concluded, so it could not bind or serve as the basis for a yearly tenancy or a periodic tenancy. So, they were tenants at will properly so called. What does this mean for you as a tenant in Nigeria? It means that according to the tenant paper sack, if you have a yearly tenancy or a fixed tenancy and it expires, when it expires, you do not reach a fresh agreement with your landlord and there's nothing in the previous agreement that says that the agreement will continue and will be renewed by maybe the payment of fresh rent or the carrying out of certain activities, that tenancy determines and once your payment lapses, you become a tenant at will and you are now entitled to 7-day notice. So, let me give an example. You entered into a fixed tenancy for instance, January to December 2025 or a periodic tenancy say uh May 2025 to April 2026. Now, April uh 30th, your tenancy expired. From May the 1st, if you have not paid another uh sum of money, another rent to your landlord, you have crossed from a yearly tenant into a tenant at will. You have crossed from being a yearly tenant into a tenant at will. Overnight, you have crossed. And uh the way that you can avoid this is to enter before the expiration of that one into a fresh agreement or after the expiration before your landlord will bring the notice to you. You enter into a fresh agreement or in the initial agreement, you indicate and agree with your landlord that that tenancy will continue by the doing of certain acts will be renewed and will continue to endure until parties determine it by certain steps or by certain occurrences.

[00:17:45]So, this is how you can avoid that.

[00:17:47]Else, you cross on May 1st into tenancy at will and you will now be entitled to 7 days owner's intention to recover possession without more. That is what Odutola and Paper Sack said. To round off this episode, I want to read to you some certain dictums of the Supreme Court that I found to be very interesting. This is word for word what the Supreme Court said in this judgment. Uh here, the Supreme Court said regarding creation of tenancy at will that a tenant who holds over after the expiration of his fixed term is a tenant at sufferance. If he pays rent and the landlord accepts it, he becomes a tenant at will in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

[00:18:38]Now, on the issue of agreement of the mind that I kept, you know, mentioning consensus ad idem, the Supreme Court said, "A court of law cannot move away from the evidence before it to speculate on the existence of a yearly tenancy when there is no such agreement between the parties. Tenancy is a bilateral agreement where the parties agree on the terms. It is not a unilateral agreement." On the issue of payment of rent because some tenants will hide behind that that I paid new rent. You know, the court said, "The fact that a tenant at will pays rent does not change his status to a yearly tenant. The payment of rent is only one of the factors to be considered in determining the nature of the tenancy, but it is not the sole or conclusive factor.

[00:19:25]Let's look at some more. Justice Niki Tobi also said regarding uh you know, I said that they were negotiating a new lease. He said, "Negotiations for a lease does not amount to a lease.

[00:19:37]As long as the parties are in the state of negotiation, no relationship of landlord and tenant of a periodic nature is created." Now, on uh 7-day notice, let's round it off. Uh the court also said, "A tenant at will is entitled to 7 days notice of the landlord's intention to apply to the court for possession.

[00:20:00]Once the 7-days notice is properly served, the tenancy is legally terminated."

[00:20:08]So, once you serve a tenant at will 7-days notice, you have terminated the tenancy. Once the 7 days comes to an end, you march to court and you commence an action for the recovery of the premises. I hope you have learned one or two things or three things or four things or five things or as many things as possible today. Please share this video and leave me comments in the comment section. Like this video, it's very important. If you love what you watched, please like it, like it.

[00:20:38]Click that thumbs up icon and like it.

[00:20:40]And don't forget you can join the channel for some exclusive perks and uh you can also mail me at [email protected] for all concerns. Don't forget you can also book a paid consultation for tailored advisory uh on your legal challenges. I will see you in my very next video. Check the description box for all the goodies that we have for you on the channel. And please subscribe to Battle with Ola.

[00:21:05]Toodles.