Lagos State Tenancy Law And The Jankara System Of Justice —Prince M. A. Akinsemoyin

The problem of housing in Lagos state is a serious issue that touches the heart of every resident in the state. This is why Lagos state government enacted the Tenancy Law to regulate the rights and obligations under tenancy agreements and the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, including the procedure for the recovery of premises and other connected purposes in the state.

To me, the law simply sets out to protect tenants from arbitrary and summary eviction without due process, but I doubt whether the implementation would be such that will make it difficult for some irresponsible magistrates or some unscrupulous lawyers and the corrupt court registrar conniving with notorious Court Sheriff and criminal-minded landlords to explore the vulnerability of the law in the area of “Service of process”, and “Service of Notices” to their own advantage, especially in the case of residential premises,

Initially in Lagos state, a landlord used to engage in illegal practice (Jankara) whereby the landlord will produce another person as defendant (tenant) in court. In order to curb this, the court usually takes photograph of the defendant. The new system has been devised now to beat due process. The landlord now uses single fictitious name as defendant even if the residential premises in question is occupied by so many tenants. They do this so that the occupier will not be aware, in order to prevent the appearance of the defendant in court.

The first stage will be two or three ‘Quit Notices’ letter with different dates from a solicitor addressed to the fictitious name and the address of the premises in question in which the occupier is not aware of. In fact, the whole value of legal system- integrity of the rule of law is at once destroyed if it becomes possible for the landlord in conjunction with the Court Registrar and a rogue, a son of a perjured affidavit-bitch of a Court Sheriff to fill the ‘WRIT OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST A TENANT OR PERSON REFUSING TO DELIVER UP POSSESSION’ form with spurious information i.e. false name as the defendant occupying all the flats in the premises, false rent amount and also indicated on the form that the defendant “Refused to sign”, meanwhile the would-be defendant was never contacted or informed or aware that a suit is being initiated against him/her. The only correct information in the form will be the address of the premises.

In the case of “AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE’ FORM”, The court Sheriff, after receiving bribe from the landlord will fill the form on oath indicating that he had served the defendant a writ of summons, true copy whereof annexed issued out of the court upon the defendant by delivering same personally to the defendant through the occupier who refused to sign and refused to give his name at the same address where the occupier or defendant resides. The Sheriff will further indicate in the form that, “the day he served the summons, he (Sheriff) did not know the defendant/occupier personally, but after the defendant was pointed out to him by the plaintiff’s representative and asked the defendant if he (defendant) is the occupier and the defendant said ‘yes.’” Can you imagine that, whereas the Sheriff never served anything, he will just prepare the form in his office and swear to an oath.

On the ‘HEARING NOTICE’ form, it will also be stated that the defendant “Refused to sign” and countersigned by the court registrar. Meanwhile, the would-be defendant was not aware of all these processes.

Another AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE’ form will be prepared giving a different date and signed by the Sheriff on oath that the defendant was duly served the hearing notice but ‘Refused to sign’. All these forms are prepared fraudulently to show that the service of notices was carried out in such a manner that it can be established to the satisfaction of the court that the person (defendant) has knowledge of the notices, whereas it is not to the knowledge of the defendant.

The law says service of any summons, warrant or other processes shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of the law relating to the service of civil process of magistrate court or high court of Lagos state, while service of notices should be properly served in such a manner that it can be established to the satisfaction of the court that the person so served will have knowledge of any of the notices.

In the case of residential premises, it shall be properly served on a tenant of residential premises personally, or delivery to any adult residing at the premises to be recovered or by courier where the tenant cannot be found, by delivering same at the premises sought to be recovered and the courier shall provide proof of delivery; or affixing the notice on a prominent part of the premises to be recovered and providing corroborative proof of service. At time notices will be pasted and photograph taken and the same notice will be removed immediately after taking the photograph by the court officials so that the residents will not understand what is going on, even if some of the tenants were around that time.

The question now is: ‘HOW’ can the service of all the notices be carried out and proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant actually knows about the notices and refuse to appear? There is need for the judiciary to plug the extant and systemic loopholes in the legal processes that facilitate and encourage corruption. Bribery and abuse of office by court officials have severely undermined access to justice for ordinary people. There is urgent need to put a system in place block the loopholes in the services of court notices. All these forms can be completed in one fell swoop given different dates and tendered as exhibits in court and the judgment will be delivered within three months. This actually shows that something is wrong with the judiciary and the legal profession as a whole and there should be an immediate remedy to bring this absurdity to an end.

The magistrate will deliver the judgment as follows: “The defendant herein, despite being duly served not only the writ of summons in respect of this suit but also hearing notice, refused, declined, neglected or failed to put up appearance in this court. This case is therefore an undefended suit which is effect means there is no evidence to counter the evidence led by the plaintiff’s attorney during the hearing of the suit. The court was informed on oath that the defendant herein is a bad tenant who, apart from owing arrears of rents, does not participate in environmental sanitation exercise. The evidence led by the plaintiff as to the issuance and service of the two statutory notices, copies of which were tendered in evidence at the trial of this suit and were admitted and marked Exhibit ‘C’ AND ‘ D’ (as the case may be) has been believed by this court. Consequently, I hold and believe that the tenancy herein has been duly and validly terminated in accordance with the relevant legislation. Further more, I hold and believe that an order for possession would be reasonable to make in the circumstances of this case based on the ground of arrears of rents and nuisance. Accordingly and in view of this, the defendant herein is hereby ordered to vacate and deliver up possession to the plaintiff, the apartment (the flat number or bungalow) he holds of the plaintiff which is lying, being and situate at the (the address of the premises).”

He will further state that “the defendant is ordered to pay certain amount being the arrears of rents for certain period and profits at the rate certain amount a month from certain date until possession is finally given up, etc. the judgment read today. Plaintiff Attorney in court. Defendant absent. No legal representative in court for either side. COURT!!!!!!!”. This type of judgment is common and the victims are always the common people. Honestly, there is need to question the quality of justice coming out of our various magistrate’s courts.

There is need to ask if the operators of the judiciary, our magistrates or justices, are really committed to the rule of law, justice, equity and good conscience. Are they really interested in the commonman getting justice?. I don’t want to believe that the magistrate is not part of the conspiracy because the rapidity with which some this type of cases are being disposed off is something else. At times, it ends within four months, if there is no appearance of the defendant due to the methods of not letting the would-be defendant know about the suit. Lack of appearance of the defendant will make the judgment fast like supersonic jet fighter. Someone somewhere is giving landlords this type of bad idea. Similar judgment was recently given in a Suit No: MCL/283/2010 at Igbosere magistrate’s court 2 in 21 December, 2010.

Few days later the victims’ properties will be thrown out in the presence of armed policemen, court Sheriff and at times area boys inclusive. In some cases any tangible property like laptop etc, will be taken away fraudulently by the High court Sheriff without recording it. The Sheriff will not even bother to find out why the name on the court judgment is not the same as the name of the occupant or occupants. All they know is that, the judgment is in respect of the premises. Is this justice? Is this fair? If this type of nonsense is happening in a state like Lagos then, it is unfortunate. Eko O ni baje.

There is no doubt that many tenants have been so treated and they abound in various parts of the state. Unfortunately, not that the tenants lack courage to enforce their rights against their landlords but the cost involved in employing services of a lawyer. Where a tenant is wrongfully ejected, he can sue for damages. However, mostly affected by these illegal ejections are the poor ones or the illiterate. The OPD (Office of Public Deceits?) an arm of the Ministry of Justice that renders pro-bono legal services for the poor, is to say the least ineffective on this type of matter. OPD (Office of Public Defender) is always pussy-footing to go to court to set aside the judgment that was fraudulently obtained and seek appropriate redress. As a result, the ejected tenant(s) are suddenly thrown into serious financial crisis and apart from the financial ruins occasioned by the damage to their properties during the surprise eviction, the suffering in some cases due to the unexpected separation of families is better imagined.

• Akinsemoyi writes from Lagos