NIGERIA HOSPITALITY LAW

HOTEL AND ITS GUESTS

Introduction.

Generally speaking the liability of a landlord or occupier of a premises to his visitor is regulated by common law of tort. But the liability of a Hotel owner is somewhat different in view of statutory intervention. Laws had been enacted to stipulate in what situation will the hotel owner be liable and if found liable to what extent will the hotel be liable. By virtue of Nigerian legal heritage with Britain the earliest law on this subject matter relating to Nigeria is the English Innkeepers Acts 1878 while the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956 of England is not applicable. As at date, many states in Nigeria now have their own domestic law in place of the received English statute. For instance, all the states in the former Western Region of Nigeria have the Innkeepers Law Innkeepers’ Act Cap 51 for old Oyo State while Lagos State had repealed the domesticated Innkeepers Act and replaced same with Hotel Proprietors Law No. 6 of 1990. Innkeepers and Hotel Proprietors Law Cap 74 of Jigawa State of Nigeria, Innkeepers Law of 1958 Vol. 2 Laws of Ogun State 1-53 to 1-54, The Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 2006, Innkeepers and Hotel Proprietors Law Cap 14 Revised Edition Laws of Kwara State of Nigeria Law 2006, Innkeepers and Hotel Proprietors Law Cap 71 Laws of Rivers State of Nigeria 1999. In view of its comprehensive nature the Lagos State Hotel Proprietors Law of Lagos State will be used in this presentation.

Meaning of Hotel.

Under Section 12 of the Hotel Proprietors Law, Hotel has been defined in section 12 of the law as follows:

“hotel” means any building used as a guest house, inn, lodge, motel, tavern, night club, restaurant and other place for the sale of food or drink within the premises of a hotel, but does not include a restaurant and other places for the sale of food and drink which are outside the premises of a hotel, and does not include a hostel or hotel, established –

by an educational institution for the accommodation of students; or

by a charitable organisation for the accommodation of the sick, infirm, disabled or destitute; or

by anybody under statutory power as a house of correction or punishment or training.

Under the Innkeeper Law Cap 51 of old Oyo State an “Inn” was defined in section 2 as –

“any hotel, inn, tavern, public house or other place of refreshment the keeper of which is now by law responsible for the goods and chattels of his guests”.

It is easily deducible from the above that the definition of Hotel under the Hotel Proprietors Law is more comprehensive. Hence Hotel will include:

a) Guest house.
b) Inn.
c) Motel.
d) Tavern.
e) Night club.
f) Restaurant.
g) Other place for the sale of food or drink within the premises of a hotel.

The law excluded from the meaning of Hotel, places for the sale of food and drink which are outside the premises of a hotel. In this regard, Mr. Biggs, Sweet Sensation, Chicken Lovers, Chicken Republic will not qualify as hotel for the purpose of this law but a restaurant owned and operated within the hotel will qualify as such.

The law does not recognise some properties rendering accommodation facilities as Hotel, namely:

a) Hostel established by schools.

b) Home of established by charitable organisation for the sick destitute and disables.

c) Correctional home established pursuant to statutory provision.

It must be mentioned that some laws expanded the meaning of Hotel beyond the limit indicated above. What must be borne in mind is that the meaning so accorded must be within the context of such law. The Hotel Licensing Law of Lagos State as amended by Hotel Licensing (Amendment) Law singed into law in July, 2010 extended the meaning of hotel beyond the meaning ascribed to is under the Hotel Proprietors Law. It provides as follows:

“Hotel includes any building used as guest house, Inn, lodge, motel, tavern, night club, events centre, fast food outlet, restaurant in the State”.

The limitation imposed on restaurant, and other places for the sale of food and drink which are outside the premises is not relevant here. The difference notwithstanding, it follows that for the purpose of Hotel licensing in Lagos State the wider definition given to Hotel will be relevant whilst for the purpose of Hotel Owner’s liability the narrower definition contained in the Hotel Proprietors Law will be the appropriate meaning. Hence we shall adopt the latter definition in this write up.

It is not necessary for a name plate or advert be placed in front of a premises as Hotel, lodge or tavern before it will be so recognised. It is not also compulsory that some of the ancillary services such as bar, restaurant or alcoholic refreshment are available before a premises will qualify as hotel. Once accommodation services are given other than boarding house facilities it will come within the ambit of the Hotel Proprietors Law.

The distinction between an Inn or hotel is a matter of nomenclature, most premises called in one of the two names could be described/or called in the other name without any prejudice or argument. Hence Hotel or Inn are one and the same.

DUTIES OF HOTEL PROPRIETORS

Duty to provide accommodation and other hotel facilities

Section 1 of the Hotel Proprietors law state thus:

“Every hotel proprietor shall receive in his hotel any person presenting himself as requiring any of the services and facilities offered by the hotel and who appears able and willing to pay a reasonable sum for such services and facilities, and who is in a fit state to be received unless the hotel proprietor has a reasonable ground for refusal”.

Following the above statutory provision an hotel proprietor is duty bound to render service to any person interested in the facilities available in the hotel provided the person appears “able” and “willing” to pay a reasonable sum for such services and is in fit state of mind and personality to be received. The hotel on reasonable ground can however refuse to render such service on reasonable ground.

The duty of the Hotel Proprietor is not absolute in BROWNE V BRANDT (1902) I KB 696. An intended lodger following the sudden breakdown of his vehicle came into an Inn for accommodation around 2.00 a.m. Due to lack of vacancy the Inn could not accede to his request for room. His request to sleep in the public room was also rejected by the Inn. On an action filed by the intended lodger, the court held that the Inn had done nothing wrong in view of the fact that the Inn was already full. Lord Alverstone LCJ stated “I think a person who comes to an Inn has no legal right to demand to pass the night in the public sitting room if the bedrooms are all full, and I think that the Landlord has no obligation to receive him”.

The duty to render the service is personal to each proprietor. For instance if a Protea Hotel in Victoria Island rather granting a request for accommodation referred the guest to another Protea Hotel in Ikeja, such duty imposed on the Protea Hotel Victoria Island would have been breached. In CONSTANTINE V IMPERIAL LONDON HOTELS LTD (1944) 2 All ER 171 – Here the Imperial Hotel in London refused accommodation to a West Indian Cricketer, a person of substance on the basis that he was black. The Hotel directed him to another hotel owned by the same company. On action brought pursuant to this refusal, the court held each proprietor owed prospective lodger separate duty which in this case has not been discharged by the Imperial London Hotels Ltd. which was not capable of being discharged by another hotel.

An Hotel Proprietor can validly refuse rendering of service to a guest for the following reasons:

a) Where the person did not appear to have ability to pay for the service.

b) Where the person is seen as unfit in mind or by personality to pay.

c) In case of other reasonable ground such as full occupancy.

Duty to ensure safety of the person of his Guest.

The Hotel Proprietor owed his guests duty to ensure their safety while in his premises. Section 2 of the Hotel Proprietors Law provides that:

“It is the duty of a hotel proprietor to take reasonable care for the safety of the person of his guest so that the guest is not injured by anything happening to him through the misconduct or negligence of the hotel proprietor while is the hotel proprietor’s guest”.

The above provision is in consonance with the common law rules where an occupier of a building owes all his lawful visitors duty of care. Accordingly, a hotel proprietor will be liable if due to defective staircase or lifts his guest suffers injury. Same goes for quality of food served in the hotel. If unwholesome meat or contaminated seafood are served to guest the hotel proprietor is liable for any claim arising from the food poisoning suffered by the guest. Nevertheless, the Hotel will only be liable if the injury occurs whilst the guests are in the permissible area of the premises. There are some areas in the Hotel that are either clearly marked as out of bound for Guest or non staff or by the nature of what goes on there a guest is not expected therein. In CAMPBELL V SHELBOURNE HOTEL LTD (1939) 2 KB 534(CA) a guest who had stayed in the hotel on several occasions in the past was checked into a room at the ground floor which he had never occupied. From enquiry, he was told that the lavatory was diagonally located across the passage from his room. When he was pressed in the night and he tried to find his way in the dark passage as there was no light therein, he opened an adjoining door which led into the basement and injured himself.

The court held the hotel liable as it owed the guest a duty to take all reasonable care to see that the premises were safe, and their failure to light a passage of a hotel located in London by almost midnight constitute a breach of their duty.

Duty for the safety of Guest’s goods.

The Hotel Proprietor owes the guests a duty to ensure the safety of the goods brought into the hotel. Sections 3 and 4 of the Hotel Proprietors Law provide as follows:

1. A hotel proprietor shall only be liable for the property of his guest which is lost, stolen or damaged within the premises of the hotel unless –

the loss or damage is caused by the misconduct or negligence of the guest who suffers the loss or damage; or

the loss or damage arises from an act of God or of alien enemies; or

the loss or damage is in respect of a motor vehicle or property left therein.

1. (1) Without prejudice to any other liability incurred by a hotel proprietor with respect to property brought to a hotel by a guest, the hotel proprietor shall not be liable to make good to any guest any loss of or damage to any such property except where –

at the time the loss or damage, sleeping accommodation at the hotel had been engaged for the guest; and

the loss or damage occurred during the period of engage-ment for the person was a guest at the hotel and entitled to use the accommodation so engaged.

(2) Without prejudice to any other liability or right of his with respect to it, a hotel proprietor shall not be liable to make good to any guest of his any loss of or damage to any motor vehicle or trailer brought to the hotel or any property left therein; but nothing in this Law shall be construed as precluding into a contract for the safety of the motor vehicle or property therein.

By virtue of section 4 of the law the duty of the Hotel proprietor to ensure the safety of any guest property will only arise at the time of occurrence or such loss or damage, sleeping accommodation had been engaged by the guest. Not only this; the guest must also be entitled to use the accommodation so engaged.

It must be pointed out that the ownership of the property brought into the hotel by the Guest is not an issue. Once such goods are brought along by the guest it attracts duty of protection by the proprietor notwithstanding the fact that after all he may not be the owner of the property. In ROBINS V GRAY (1895) 2 QB 501 (CA) in this case the Innkeeper sought to enforce his right of lien over the luggage – (sewing machines) brought into the hotel by the guest. The court held by per Lord Esher that “if a traveller comes to an Inn with goods which are his luggage – I do not say his personal luggage, but his luggage – the Innkeeper by law of the land is bound to take him and his luggage in”.

Accordingly, the sewing machines were held to constitute part of the guest luggage capable of being withheld by the Innkeeper.

Exception to the duty of Hotel Proprietors to ensure safety of Guest’s property. †

1. Where the loss or damage is attributable to the guests misconduct or negligence. In ARMISTEAD V WILDE (1851) 17 QB 261 a guest left his money carelessly in a place it could be seen easily. On the loss of same the court held the proprietor as blameless as the loss was a self inflected.

In JONES V JACKSON (1873) 29 LT 399 the guest decided to carelessly left his money in the room contrary to a notice placed in the room informing the guest of the Hotel willingness to receive in safe deposit all guest valuable. When the money was eventually lost, the court held the guest as negligent.

The same decision was reached in CHAMIER V DE VERE HOTELS LTD (1928) 72 501 JO 155.

The question of whether a guest is negligent is a question of fact. This can be demonstrated with some other cases. CARPENTER V HOTEL LTD (1931) 1 KB 364 (QBD) Mrs. Capenter placed a diamond ring earlier worn by her in jewel case, locked the door and dropped the key at the reception. Mrs. Capenter later discovered the ring missing. It was held that the guest had taken adequate care to ensure the safety of the ring hence the theft was not due to her negligence. In this case the Innkeeper was found liable.

In another case of SHACKLOCK V ETHORPE LTD (1939) 3 All ER 372 (HL) here the guest left her jewellery and money in her bedroom all locked in a jewellery box and thereafter locked in a large suite case. She however left the door open and later came back to find jewellery and money removed.

The court held that in view of the hotel policy requiring the guest to leave their door open to enable chambermaids have access to the room, the guest could not be said to be negligent for leaving the door open.

2 . Where the loss or damage arises through the act of God or aliens enemy. It follows that where damage or loss is due to general calamity like flood, landslide, volcano eruption or damage due to an invading army into Nigeria territory, the hotel proprietor will not be liable.

3 . Where the items lost or damage is a motor vehicle. Section 3(c) –

The law absolved a hotel proprietor of liability in respect of reported cases of damage or loss to vehicles or property kept therein. In IMO CONCORDE HOTEL V ANYA (1992) 4 NWLR (pt 234) 210, the Court of Appeal held that in the absence of special contract for the safe keeping of the car the hotel was not liable for the loss of motor vehicle within its premises.

It must be emphasised that the hotel proprietor and the guests could enter into a contract for the safety of the guest’s motor vehicle within its premises. See section 4(2) of Hotel Proprietor law.

Limit of Hotel Proprietor Liability

The law limit the liability of a hotel proprietor. It provide in Section 5 that where a hotel proprietor is liable to make good for the loss of or any damage to property brought to the hotel, his liability to any one guest shall not exceed N200.00 (Two hundred naira) in respect of any one article, or N2,000.00 (Two thousand naira) in the aggregate except where:

the property was stolen, lost or damaged through the default, neglect or wilful; act of the hotel proprietor or some servant of his; or

the property was deposited by or on behalf of the guest expressly for the safe custody with the hotel proprietor; or

at a time after the guest had arrived at the hotel, either the property in question was offered for deposit as aforesaid and the hotel proprietor or his servant refused to receive it, or the guest or some other guest acting on his behalf wished so to offer the property in question but, through the default of the hotel proprietor was unable to do so.

By virtue of this law, the liability of a hotel proprietor is limited to N200.00 in respect of one article or N2,000.00 in the aggregate. The Hotel proprietor will loss the benefit of this limitation in certain instances.

the loss or damage occurred through the wilful conduct negligence or default of the hotel proprietor. See BEHRENS V GRENVILLE HOTEL (BUDE) LTD (1925) 69 SOL. JO. 346. In this case it was held that the duty to proof that the loss or damage occurred through the negligence of the Hotel proprietor lies with the Guest claiming it. See WHITEHOUSE V PICKETT (1908) AG 357 (HL).

Where the property is expressly deposited for safe keeping with the Hotel Proprietor. In this case if the property is subsequently lost or damage whilst in the custody of the hotel property, the hotel proprietor will be liable for such loss or damage. To satisfy the requirement of express deposit, it must be shown that there was an overt act by the guest to inform the Hotel Proprietors that those items are being kept in his custody and that the Hotel Proprietor accepted to keep them and be responsible for their safety. See WHITE HOUSE v PICKET, O’CONNOR v Grand International Hotel Co. [1890] 21 R 92. The items must be received by an authorised officer of the Hotel. See MOSS v RUSSEL [1844] 1 TLR 13 LA.

Where the guest on arrival at the hotel offered to drop the article with the hotel proprietor and he refused to receive it. The hotel proprietor may however validly refuse collection of the item if the guests disallow inspection of the property. In deserving cases the Hotel proprietor may require that such article be kept in a sealed or pastel box. See Section 6(a) i, and ii.

The hotel proprietor is entitled to reject the admittance of such goods or chattels if same is find to be harmful, dangerous or unlawful to keep or due to its size, shape or form same cannot be kept in safe deposit facilities.

Condition precedent to limitation of Hotel Proprietor Liability

The law obliged a hotel proprietor to place in conspicuous part of the Hotel premises a Notice in specified form to alert the guests of the limitation to their claim against the hotel properties. See Section 8 of the Hotel Proprietors law. The content of the Notice is specified in the schedule to the law. This notice must be conspicuously displayed where it could conveniently be read. See SHACKLOCK v ETHORPE LTD. [1937] 4 All ER 672. In this case a notice of 6 feet from the ground floor in a corridor above a glass exhibition case was held not to be conspicuous enough to satisfy the requirement of a law with similar provision. See also CAREY v LONG’S HOTEL CO. LTD. [1891] 7 TLR 213, CA.

Right of a Hotel Proprietor

The hotel proprietors law conferred certain rights on the hotel proprietors namely:

1. Right of Lien

“A hotel proprietor has a lien upon, and may detain, any property brought into the hotel by the guest, whether or not deposited with the hotel proprietor, for the price of the guest’s unpaid bill for board or lodging –

Provided that such a right of lien shall not extend to the apparels worn by the guest at the time of the exercise of the right of lien”.
The hotel has a lien upon any property brought into the hotel by the guest in lieu of unpaid bills incurred in the hotel. It is submitted that where as in group booking where a third party brought guests into the hotel and elect to be solely responsible for the bills, detaining the guests items for the unpaid bills may not be justifiable. The right of action in this case will lie against the third party that made the booking and elected to pay. Furthermore, the lien does not extend to the cloth worn by the guest at the time the hotel proprietor is exercising his right of lien.

On the other hand any property brought into the hotel by the guests whether owned by him or not is subject to the hotel proprietor right of lien. See ROBINS V GRAY (1895) 2 QB 501 CA. The right will also extend to property later brought into the hotel by the Guest whilst in occupation.

2. Right to dispose goods left behind by Guests

Where a guest checked out of the hotel leaving behind unpaid bills, the hotel proprietor is entitled to sell the property left behind by the guest after twelve (12) weeks of the guest departure. The guest goods or chattels include motor vehicle, trailers, ware or merchandise. See Section 10. It provides –

10(1) A hotel proprietor shall in addition to lien, have the right, subject to the provision of the Section, absolutely to sell and dispose by public auction of any goods or chattels which may have been deposited with him or left in the hotel, or in the premises appurtenant or belonging thereto, where the person depositing or leaving such goods of chattels is or becomes indebted to the said hotel proprietor either for board or lodging.

(2) No such sale shall be made until after the said goods or chattels have been for the space of twelve weeks in such charge or custody or in or upon such premises without such debt having been paid or satisfied.

The guest is however entitled to the balance remaining after the debt had been set off from the sale proceeds.

Before the goods left behind are sold, in order to give opportunity for the guest to settle their outstanding bill, the hotel is obliged to advertise in on Newspaper notice of the intended sale with sufficient pastels of the guest, and goods intended to be sold. See Section 10(4) of the law.

Conclusion.

It is safe to say that the rights, duties and liabilities of guests in Lagos State are now a matter of statute and not of common law. Though ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but the fact still remains that many hotel proprietors are not aware of their rights under this law.