The bulk of civil cases in Magistrates’ Courts relate to recovery of premises proceedings and connected matters. Unfortunately, majority of decisions on these cases are not tested on appeal due to poverty resulting in inability to fund appeal processes or a sheer unwillingness on the part of litigants to appeal. A few of these cases that proceeded beyond the Magistrates’ Courts level terminate at the High Court, except few that involve highly placed individuals or multinational corporations who have the resources to finance appeal processes at the Court of Appeal.

The result is that cases of recovery of premises decided at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are few compared to the number instituted at the Magistrates’ Courts and High Courts. Unfortunately, cases which strictly deal with recovery of premises, when commenced at the lower courts are transformed into a hybrid of recovery of premises and other issues by the time decided on appeal at the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. See Elochin Nig Ltd and Anor V. Mbadiwe which was instituted at the Lagos High Court for unlawful ejectment, for not complying with the procedures of the Recovery of Premises Law. By the time it got to the Supreme Court a substantial part of the judgment was based on principles guiding award of exemplary damages. Against this background, decisions of the High Courts on recovery of premises cannot be entirely ignored for any meaningful discussion on this subject matter.

The Supreme Court has over the years adopted and applied some of these lower court decisions on landlord and tenant in its contemporary decisions; See Pan Asian African Co. Ltd V. National Insurance Corporation (Nig) Ltd (1982)9 S.C. 1. Where the Supreme Court adopted and approved Akinosho v. Enigbokan & Anor (1955) I All N.L.R. 257, and Dawodu v. Ijale (1946) 12 W.A.C.A 12, in formulating the principles of statutory tenancy. In fact, Chief F.R.A. Williams (SAN) unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to overrule Dawodu v. ljale (supra) and Sobamowo v. The Federal Public Trustee (supra). The Supreme Court refused and reaffirmed the principles established in these lower courts’ decisions.

In line with this objective, the book is divided into ten chapters. Each chapter consists of comments, reported cases and summary. The cases fully reported are foundation cases that are considered relevant. But where there are any changes, such are reflected in the comments. For instance, the principles established in Oku V. Awanah (1961) All N.L.R. 116, on joinder of causes of action have been overruled by the Court of Appeal in Adejumo v. Hughes & Co. Ltd. (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 120) 146. The current thinking is that joinder of causes of action is to be regulated by the rules of court rather than solely by the provisions of the Recovery of Premises Statutes. Therefore the essence of the comments is to update principles of recovery of premises and bring them into proper focus.