In their article, Irregular Statutory Notices in Recovery of Premises Litigation: An Analysis of the Law and the Changing Judicial Attitude, Chimizie Onuzulike and Athanasius Akor, bring to our attention the recent developments in the law and practice on recovery of tenanted premises. The current legal framework on recovery of premises in Nigeria is replete with very many impediments that make it very difficult for a landlord to recover his premises from his tenant. The strict requirement of service of valid statutory notices as condition precedent to the institution of any action for recovery of premises almost invariably, lead to lengthy court battles contested primarily on technical objections commonly raised by tenants relating to validity of a statutory notice. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pillars Nigeria Ltd v. William Kojo Desbordes et al. per Ogunwumiju JSC recently made a remark which seems to suggest that once the summons for recovery of possession is filed, every irregularity in a notice to quit is cured and the time begins to run from the date the originating process is served on the tenant. The Court of Appeal recently adopted the remark of Ogunwunmiju JSC in Pillars’ case as the law and held that the irregularity in the service of statutory notices is cured once an action for recovery of premises is filed by the landlord. While this is a progressive approach, the question whether the remark of Ogunwunmiju JSC in Pillars’ case is an obiter dictum or forms part of the ratio in Pillars’ case as to be binding on lower courts needs to be answered to determine the extent to which the law has changed. Onuzulike and Akor review the Pillars’ case, the recent decision of the Court of Appeal and other earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on the subject.