Al-hafs Investment Limited V. Railway Property Company Limited & Anor (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on 4th of July, 2001 by Hon. Justice Jinadu.

The facts briefly stated are as follows:

The Plaintiff, now Appellant, was granted a lease of part of the premises in respect of Nigerian Railway Corporation at Iddo Terminus, Lagos. Sometime in 1998, the 1st Respondent to whom the Management of the said property was transferred took steps to terminate the Appellant’s lease.

The Appellant later discovered that the said premises had been transferred to the 2nd Respondent. Hence the Appellant commenced this suit by a Writ of Summons claiming the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that the purported termination by the 2nd Defendant of the Tenancy Agreement dated 7th of February, 1992 by letter Ref: E/1578 Vol. 1/54 dated 9th of February, 1998 is invalid and ineffectual for that purpose.

2. A declaration that on the true construction of the said Agreement and in the events which have happened, the plaintiff holds a tenancy of the said premises.
3. An injunction to restrain the Defendants by themselves, their servants, agents and otherwise howsoever from entering upon the said premises other than as stipulated by agreement dated 7th of February, 1992 between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. Or in the alternative to (3) above.
4. An order directing an inquiry into the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the unlawful termination of the said Agreement of 7th of February, 1992 and
5. An order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff such sum as may be found due to them as a result of the said inquiry.”

The Appellant equally applied for injunctive reliefs by a motion ex-parte along with a motion on notice. The trial Court upon hearing of the motion ex-parte made the following order:

“Pending the hearing of that application (i.e. Motion on Notice) the parties should maintain the status quo on it bellum (sic) and the plaintiff should not be dispossessed of the property until this court otherwise orders.”

It is the contention of the Respondent’s Counsel that the motion for interlocutory injunction was withdrawn by the Appellant and same accordingly struck out by the Court and that the ex-parte order also lapsed. On the other hand, it is the Appellant counsel’s contention that the motion was still pending when the 2nd Respondent moved into the premises.

This led to the Appellant filing a motion dated 8th of July, 2000 praying that the said premises/property be sealed up. The said application was granted on 15th of June, 2001. Being dissatisfied with the said ruling, the 2nd Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal together with an application for stay of execution of the order sealing up the premises.

The application for stay was granted by the trial judge on 4th of July 2001. Dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged this appeal against the Ruling of the trial Court dated 4th of July, 2001, whereupon the 1st Respondent also cross appealed.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed on 17th of July, 2001. 1st Respondent’s Notice of Cross Appeal was filed on 30th of December, 2002.

In accordance with the rules of this Court, parties filed their brief of arguments. The Appellant’s brief dated and filed on 21st of December, 2001, while the 1st Respondent/cross appellant’s brief dated 19th of September, 2006 was filed on 18th of March, 2008.

No brief was filed by the 2nd Respondent nor did the Appellant file a reply brief.