The question on my mind at this time is, “Will Nigeria ever introduce laws against retaliatory evictions in the National tenancy laws and individual State laws?”

A landlord, Mr Adebajo, had through his agent, Mr Aremu, charged his tenant, Mrs Ajayi, to court.

Five Nigerian lawyers weighed in on the matter and the current consensus is that there is no clause against retaliatory evictions in Nigeria and that the landlord has every right to ask a tenant to leave his house.

One of the lawyers, Ini Pepple, said: “Yes there is nothing like retaliatory eviction. As long as you’ve been given valid notice, you have to leave. Except where you can prove malicious damage and the landlord is made to pay for the same.

“But you can’t live on the premises forever. You hold your term at the pleasure of the landlord; unfortunately.

“She can counterclaim, but if she was validly served, she will end up spending money to hire a lawyer and go through the process without anything tangible.”

Another lawyer, J.T. Ogunniyi, the NBA Chairman in the zone, had reportedly pointed out to her that it was a moral issue and the current laws do not have a provision for it.

He, however, assured her that she would not be thrown out on the streets as the Landlord threatened, but would get a grace period of three months or more to look for another house.

There was a mild drama in the courtroom as the tenant briefly recounted the trauma she passed through last year at the hands of the landlord, who, through his caretaker had changed the locks on the gate leading to the gates and for days while she was pregnant and sick; she was not given a key.

She recounted how on a Saturday morning, which was her son’s birthday, she wanted to go out and there was a visitor, who was to help her with preparations waiting at the gate for almost an hour, she had called the agent and Landlord again.

The agent did not pick, but the landlord who picked had threatened to arrest her. She got angry and she broke the lock. She said she also wanted to arrest the agent who changed the locks but was prevailed on by her elders to forgive and forget the matter. She did. Her elders also paid for the replacement of the broken locks. Her rent was still running at this time.

Fifteen days later, the agent brought an unsigned eviction notice. She showed her lawyer and was told the notice was not valid. At the expiration of her rent in September, she sent the money for the renewal of her tenancy to the Landlord.

He replied with a message that had an implied threat that he knew the Magistrate and her money would be returned to her in court and she would be evicted. She recalled how her anxiety levels went up and she developed high blood pressure; after delivery, she and her baby also needed additional care in the hospital for months.

The judge in his remarks said the matters that relate to the enforcement of her human rights were outside the purview of the civil court, but adjourned the matter till a further date. He asked if she was owing any rent or payments and she said “No”, and that it was four months after the case started that her tenancy expired in September, which due to the fact that they were in court she did not renew.

There may be many other people in a similar situation in Nigeria, who are defenceless and do not have any option other than to bow to the dictates of others who may be richer or have more power.
It is equally possible that she is going through this experience because she is female. Nigerian landlords reportedly do not allow single women or others without a significant other to rent except if there is a man in the picture.

Gender inequality in Nigeria shows up in different forms and expressions like a woman being told to keep quiet in a community chat group or behave like some other women who are married and are quiet or not to talk when the men are talking.

The agent reportedly had told the defendant that he would prefer to talk with her husband and not with her at some point.

The usual response when landlord-tenant issues arise in Nigeria is for either the tenant to immediately look for another house and move, never minding the state of the tenant’s health or the additional unbudgeted costs of moving or to be dragged before the law courts where the tenant can plead for three or six months in some states and the tenants would still pay for something the lawyers called “mesne profits” – the money due for their tenancy during the grace period granted by the civil court.

There are reportedly agents and tenants who serve quit notices after two years so that they can get new tenants who would pay a higher commission fee or rent.

Will precedence be set in this particular matter that will lead to the insertion of clauses against retaliatory evictions in Nigeria? Only time will tell.

New York, USA has clauses against retaliatory evictions such as 2015 New York Laws:

RPP – Real Property

Article 7 – (Real Property) Landlord and Tenant

223-B – Retaliation by the landlord against the tenant.

Universal Citation: NY Real Prop L § 223-B (2015)

223-b. Retaliation by the landlord against the tenant.

1. No landlord of premises or units to which this section is applicable shall serve a notice to quit upon any tenant or commence any action to recover real property or summary proceeding to recover possession of the real property in retaliation.

a. A good faith complaint, by or on behalf of the tenant, to a governmental authority of the landlord’s alleged violation of any health or safety law, regulation, code, or ordinance, or any law or regulation which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offence of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree; or

b. Actions taken in good faith, by or on behalf of the tenant, to secure or enforce any rights under the lease or rental agreement, under section two hundred thirty-five-b of this chapter, or under any other law of the state of New York, or of its governmental subdivisions, or of the United States which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offence of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree; or

c. The tenant’s participation in the activities of a tenant’s organisation.

2. No landlord or premises or units to which this section is applicable shall substantially alter the terms of the tenancy in retaliation for any actions set forth in paragraphs a, b, and c of subdivision one of this section.

Substantial alteration shall include, but is not limited to, the refusal to continue a tenancy of the tenant or, upon expiration of the tenant’s lease, to renew the lease or offer a new lease; provided, however, that a landlord shall not be required under this section to offer a new lease or a lease renewal for a term greater than one year and after such extension of a tenancy for one year shall not be required to further extend or continue such tenancy.

3. A landlord shall be subject to a civil action for damages and other appropriate relief, including injunctive and other equitable remedies, as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in any case in which the landlord has violated the provisions of this section.

4. In any action to recover real property or summary proceeding to recover possession of real property, judgment shall be entered for the tenant if the court finds that the landlord is acting in retaliation for any action outlined in paragraphs a, b, and c of subdivision one of this section and further finds that the landlord would not otherwise have commenced such action or proceeding. Retaliation shall be asserted as an affirmative defence in such action or proceeding. The tenant shall not be relieved of the obligation to pay any rent for which he is otherwise liable.

5. In an action or proceeding instituted against a tenant of premises or a unit to which this section is applicable, a rebuttable presumption that the landlord is acting in retaliation shall be created if the tenant establishes that the landlord served a notice to quit, or instituted an action or proceeding to recover possession, or attempted to substantially alter the terms of the tenancy, within six months after

A. A good faith complaint was made, by or on behalf of the tenant, to a governmental authority of the landlord’s violation of any health or safety law, regulation, code, or ordinance, or any law or regulation which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offence of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree; or

B. The tenant in good faith commenced an action or proceeding in court or administrative body of competent jurisdiction to secure or enforce against the landlord or his agents any rights under the lease or rental agreement, under section two hundred thirty-five-b of this chapter, or under any other law of the state of New York, or of its governmental subdivisions, or of the United States which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offence of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree.

C. Judgment under subdivision three or four of this section was entered for the tenant in a previous action between the parties, or an inspection was made, an order was entered, or other action was taken as a result of a complaint or act described in paragraph a or b of this subdivision.
But the presumption shall not apply in an action or proceeding based on the violation by the tenant of the terms and conditions of the lease or rental agreement, including nonpayment of the agreed-upon rent.

The effect of the presumption shall be to require the landlord to provide a credible explanation of a non-retaliatory motive for his acts.

Such an explanation shall overcome and remove the presumption unless the tenant disproves it by a preponderance of the evidence.

5-a. Any lease provision which seeks to assess a fee, penalty or dollar charge, in addition to the stated rent, against a tenant, because such tenant files a bona fide complaint with a building code officer regarding the condition of such tenant’s leased premises, shall be null and void as being against public policy.

A landlord who seeks to enforce such a fee, penalty or charge shall be liable to the tenant for triple the amount of such fee, penalty or charge.

The answers are not yet clear. The defendant has witnesses and evidence of how she was locked in and how the eviction notices came shortly after that. Perhaps, her story will blow a new wind of change in the Nigerian landscape as regards tenancy laws. It appears to be a long journey though before that can be achieved.