Lagos State Development And Property Corporation & Anor. V. Nigerian Land And Sea Foods Ltd (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLATAWURA, J.S.C.

The action which has now culminated in this appeal was originally between the respondent as plaintiff and the 2nd appellant as defendant. It was on 3rd October 1980 that the 1st Appellant was joined as 2nd defendant. Before the joinder pleadings had been filed and exchanged. After the joinder the writ of summons and the pleadings were amended. The 1st defendant by its amended statement of defence of 6th April, 1981 set up a counter claim. The plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim dated 27th April, 1981 on 28th April, 1981. The 2nd defendant filed an amended statement of defence on 5th May, 1981.

The facts relied on by the parties are strictly in accordance with their respective pleadings. I will refer to some of the paragraphs of their respective pleadings later. It is not disputed that the 1st defendant took a lease of a parcel or portion of land from the 2nd defendant for a term of 90 years. This lease was admitted in evidence as Exhibit B. It was an industrial lease dated 19th March 1974 and registered as No.75 at page 75 in Volume 1448 of the Register of Deeds kept at Lagos State Land Registry. The plaintiff later approached the 1st defendant for a sub-lease. Arrangement was reached and there was a document prepared as a sublease for a term of 40 years but without the consent of the 2nd defendant.

It was this absence of consent that really led to the action filed by the plaintiff. The document between the plaintiff and the I5t defendant was admitted in evidence as Exhibit E. The plaintiff before the consent was sought had started building operations on the land granted it and which land forms part of Exhibit B. It came to light during the trial that though everything necessary to be done by the plaintiff was done, a director of the 1st defendant’s company wrote the 2nd defendant through Exhibit L dated 27th June 1980 that the consent being sought by 1st defendant was not in the best interest of the Board of the Company on the ground that the company itself would like further expansion of its workshop. The 2nd defendant relied on this Exhibit L and no consent was given. Consequently the plaintiff issued a writ of summons, the amended writ of summons is as follows:-

(i) a claim for an order of specific performance compelling the 1st defendant to complete the execution (including obtaining the necessary consent) of the Sublease or Agreement for a Sublease as drawn up between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in January, 1979.

(ii) an order of specific performance compelling the 2nd defendant to give its consent as required under clause 2 (1) of the lease dated 19/3/94 between the lot and 2nd defendant to the sublease as or agreement for a Sublease between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff.

(iii) an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and/or 2nd defendants by themselves their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from further demolishing all or any of the building on the said land, or molesting, dispossessing or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and use of the said buildings of the said land by the plaintiffs or their servants or agents pending the final determination of this action.

(iv) N643,314.40 jointly and severally from the 1st and 2nd defendants being special and general damages for trespass and for the illegal and unlawful demolition on the 17th of December 1979 of the plaintiff’s buildings on the land covered by the above sublease or agreement for a Sublease and also, for conspiracy between the 1st and 2nd defendants to induce a breach of the plaintiff’s agreement with the 1st defendant. There was an amended statement of claim dated the 27th of April, 1981 on which the plaintiff sought to prove his case (sic).

I will at this stage refer to the counter-claim filed by the 1st Defendant. It is as follows:-

“COUNTER CLAIM

1. The 1st defendant repeats paragraphs 1-31 of its amended statement of defence.
2. The 1st defendant claims:-

(i) recovery of possession of the area of 871.942 square metres in its premises occupied by the plaintiff as trespasser at 29 Industrial Avenue, Ilupeju Lagos State.

(ii) Special and general damages for nuisance and loss of customers and income as a result of the plaintiff’s running a liquor bar, lodgings, brothel and iron bending factory from January 1979 to 31st March 1981.

(iii) Loss of income at the rate of N2,000.00 a month from the 1st of April 1981 until judgment is given.

(iv) The further sum of N2,500.00 a month until possession is given.