TheNigerialawyer Editorial

The need to safeguard one another has never been as imperative as it is today, especially in light of the ever-increasing insecurities, illegalities and lack of trust; happening the world over. Little wonder just recently a Lagos based landlord (simply identified as Attueyi), has proposed to see to the creation of a website for Landlords.

The website is intended to assist various landlords in detecting what he refers to as “Bad tenants”. According to him, the goal of the website would be to (amongst other things); enable landlords to ascertain the history of their prospective tenants, as well as, assist landlords in reducing the risk associated with the process of renting out their properties.

The information expected to be supplied by these landlords includes,

“…the driver’s license of the tenant (last six digits), the National Identification Number (last four digits), the name and rental address of the tenant. Other information includes the tenant’s rental period, a picture of property damage by the tenant (if any), comments explaining the issues the previous landlords have experienced with the tenant”. Attueyi said he is also working on how to ensure landlords have access to their tenants’ previous criminal records.

This article, therefore, seeks to consider the legal frameworks around the said action. For convenience, the work will be divided into three parts, viz, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Civil law (the Law of Tort).

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Privacy Rights— s.37 Of the 1999 Constitution.

The Right which seeks to protect “the privacy of Citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversation and telegraphic communication…” from unnecessary intrusions. It therefore begs the question whether a Landlord would not be breaching the tenants right to privacy by supplying sensitive details such as name, address, NIM number as well as, number of the tenants driver’s License (if such a landlord had access to these information).

In 2017, one Mr. Daniel John filed an application against True Software Scandinavia AB, the Swedish parent company of Truecaller, the suit being a class action in which Daniel John represented himself and other “non-users of Truecaller”. The case of the applicant was that although he isn’t a registered user of Truecaller App, yet the software lists and publishes his name and phone number without his consent via the services they provide, thereby violating his right to privacy. Although the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (and it’s currently before the Court of Appeal). Nevertheless it is a pointer to the fact that no Persons (natural and artificial) have the right to publish personal (and sensitive) details of an individual without full consent, see also. MTN Nigeria Communications Ltd v Barr. Godfrey Eneye (2013) CA/A/689/2013 (Unreported). However, what should be termed “sensitive details”, is another question, not to be considered in this article.

We submit that, in instances where the landlord-tenancy agreement contains a clause, which allows the landlord to make such a publication about the tenant, the latter should be estopped from crying foul. See further Godfrey Nya Eneye v MTN Nigeria Communication Ltd- CA/A/689/2013 (Unreported) and Barr. Ezugwu Anene v Airtel Nigeria Ltd-FCT/HC/CV/545/2015 (Unreported). It is note worthy that, although the aforementioned cases do not touch directly on the information suggested would be posted on the website, nonetheless, the informations are as pivotal and private (if not more) as those suggested.

CRIMINAL LAW

  1. A) Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention Etc.) Act.

Contextually, the burden of proof here rests on the prosecution to prove the element of the offence, of particular mention is section 24 of the Act, which provides as follows;

“Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that –

(b) he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Because we cannot excuse the fact that the website can be misused by a few individuals/landlords with an intent to settle some heap scores with their estranged tenants, it follows that where the elements in this offence are complete, such a landlord cannot escape punishment.

  1. B) Criminal Defamation:

We consider this more tenable under civil law. Although, same can be brought based on the existing law in that locality.

CIVIL LAW

Defamation (majorly Online Defamation)

According to the 10th edition of The Black’s Law dictionary, defamation is the act of injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation by false and malicious statements. It can be categorized as either libel and slander. Libel being defamation made in a permanent form, whereas, slander is verbal/temporary defamation. To ground an action in defamation, the plaintiff needs to prove that;

1) The thing done was infact defamatory: The act done must be capable of reducing the worth of the individual before right thinking individuals. It’s noteworthy that the defamatory statement or act must be false, for it to it to succeed, thus not all negatives said about a person equates as defamation. Where the element of falsehood is missing, the action would most likely fail, —Egbuna v. Amalgamated Press of Nig. (1967) All NLR, 27 at 28

2) The defamation must be published: Publication in this context would mean that the defamation was communicated to a third party, that is it must also be published to persons other than the targeted victim. Mere knowledge of a defamatory statement without publication isn’t enough to completely ground an action in defamation, as suggested by Dario v. U.B.N (2006) 16 NWLR 1059 p 99

3) The Words must refer to the individual: Tallying the above requirements with the website scenario, it becomes clear that the possibility of defaming a tenant may exist, and such a tenant needs not prove actual harm, given that the (online) defamation in this context is actionable per se (that is not needing proof of physical damage)— Edem v. Orpheo Nigeria Limited (2003) 13 NWLR (838) 57; contrast with the United kingdom, where proof of actual harm/damage is now essential— Lachauxpendent Print Ltd & Anor [2019] UKSC 27.

In light of the above, we consider that an action for defamation will or can only be premised on the content of information supplied by the landlord as to how the tenant falls under the category of being a bad tenant. Hence, where the supplied information of is somewhat criminal and/or false, we consider that a reasonable cause of action can arise. Hence, to tag a tenant as being bad because he refused to pay outstanding debt(s) knowing same to be false is a justifiable ground for an action in defamation.

Conclusively, whilst we appreciate the benefits of creating such a website in this day and age, however, we caution that the “good step” sought to be taken may lead to avoidable litigations.

CONCLUSION

Actions capable of encroaching on the right of others are seriously viewed with scorn by the Law, which accounts for the age long aphorism, now a matter of rock solid constitutional principle that “where ones right ends, that of another begins”. Therefore, whilst this may seem applaudable because of  the benefits of creating such a website in this day and age, however, we caution that the “good step” sought  to be taken may lead to avoidable litigations.

TheNigerialawyer Editorial