Here is a law brought in to limit the extent of advance rent demanded by Landlords and to stamp out the unwholesome practice of forceful ejection of tenants.
In an attempt to set apart old or existing tenants for the purpose of protection, the enactment casually refers to them as ‘sitting tenants’. This in our view is a legal drafting error as careful thought was not given to the legal definition of ‘sitting tenant’ as not all categories of old tenants fall under the proper definition of ‘sitting tenants’.
Leading property law textbooks confirm that the expression ‘sitting tenant’ refers to an existing tenant whose tenancy renews periodically (weekly, monthly or yearly) according to payment of rent and which tenancy only comes to an end upon notice given by either side (known also as periodic tenancy). By this definition, an outgoing fixed term tenant cannot legally be described a a sitting tenant.
While it is the intention of the Law to limit advance payment of rent to a maximum of one year, its’ provisions relating to old tenants (called sitting tenants) are ambiguous and in the author’s humble view do not quite legislate this intent.
PRE LEGISLATION TENANTS
Section 4 (1 ) and (2) prohibit rent in excess of 6 months for a monthly tenant. This seems to be an anomaly since no monthly tenant pays rent beyond one month’s rent in the first place or else such Tenant cannot be described as a monthly tenant. The resultant effect of this is that the above prohibition (sorry to say) more likely prohibits nothing.
Similarly Section 4 (1 ) and (2) prohibit rent in excess of 1 year for a yearly tenant. Likewise, this is a contradiction since a person is a yearly tenant simply because he/she pays only a year’s rent each year and does so from year to year. In other words, it is factually impossible to have any yearly tenant pay more than one year rent in the first place as to have such will produce a totally different tenancy such as a 2 or 3 year tenancy with or without option to renew.
Once again, the apparent failure of this provision to capture its intent tends towards it not prohibiting anything.
For example, a tenant who paid 2 or 3 years rent prior to coming into effect of the law is not caught by the above provisions since his tenancy would not have been a monthly or yearly tenancy but more likely a 2 year or 3 year fixed term with or without an option to renew.
POST LEGISLATION TENANTS
There is however clarity in relation to new Tenants as Section 4 (3) and (4) in no uncertain terms prohibit payment of rent in excess of one year.
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
The ambiguities notwithstanding, government’s attempt to bring succour and aid to the more vulnerable in Lagos is to be commended. On their part, however, many Lagos Landlords (as reported) frown at government’s attempt to prescribe how they (Landlords) can collect rent on property they built from their own personal sweat.
Questions have therefore been asked as to why in recent time government has not lead the way in providing low income affordable social housing for the people and thus reduce demand for private housing. Social housing projects of past administrations such as the LEDB housing scheme of the 1960s and LSDPC schemes of the early 1980s are cited as examples.
CREDIBILITY ISSUE
It will appear that the Tenancy Law faces a credibility challenge in that it carves out the more exclusive areas of Lagos and excludes them from application, to wit Apapa, Ikeja G.R.A, Ikoyi and Victoria Island.
Consequently, Landlords in other parts of the state (as reported) have been up in arms claiming uneven and discriminatory treatment by Lawmakers. They point to the superior bargaining position of their wealthier neighbours in negotiating a better deal for themselves.
In response, Government has cited the peculiar nature of tenancies in the excluded areas. It reportedly explains that the areas are best served by keeping the option of long security of tenure open due to the predominant presence of big business and foreign establishments in those areas. Apparently, long and secure tenures are better suited to the operations of these establishments who are comfortable with and are able to afford them.
