Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

THEORY OF SURRENDER

Dictum

I am guided by the authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England fourth Edition Reissue page 496 paragraph 524 in which the theory of surrender was propounded thus:- “A surrender is a voluntary act of the parties whereby, with the landlord’s consent, the tenant surrenders his lease to the landlord so that the lease merges with the reversion and is thus brought to an end. It is defined as being the yielding up of the term to the person who has the immediate estate in reversion in order that, by mutual agreement, the term may merge in the reversion. The surrender may be either express, that is by an act of the parties having the expressed intention of effecting a surrender, or by operation of law, that is as an inference from the acts of the parties. The parties to the surrender must be the owner of the term and the owner of the immediate reversion expectant on the term. Consequently an undertenant cannot surrender his underlease to the head landlord. A surrender must be of the entire term in the premises; hence a tenancy held jointly cannot be surrendered by one of two joint tenants. A part only of the demised premises may, however, be surrendered”.

— A.M. Mukhtar JSC. Ohochukwu V. AG Rivers State & Ors. (SC.207/2004  • 17 February 2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

SURRENDERING PROPERTY

Generally, every express surrender is void unless it is made by deed or in writing. But “the use of the word ‘surrender’ is not necessary. Any form of words which shows the intention of the parties to effect a surrender will be sufficient and the words will be construed so as to give effect to that intention.” See; Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition page 499 paragraph 526. However, delivery of possession by the tenant to the landlord and acceptance of possession by landlord effect a surrender by operation of law. In this case, the law gives effect to the intention of the parties as appearing from their acts, and cures the informality of the surrender. It is said that where the elements of surrender are satisfied, the subsequent assertion by the tenant that he had no intention of leaving permanently is irrelevant. See; Halsbury’s Law (supra) at pages 500-501 paragraph 527.

— O. Ariwoola JSC. Ohochukwu V. AG Rivers State & Ors. (SC.207/2004  • 17 February 2012)

Was this dictum helpful?