Compagnie Generale De Geophysique V. Dr. Jackson D. Etuk (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SIMEON OSUJI EKPE, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal by the defendant against the ruling of Okon, J., delivered at Eket High Court of Akwa Ibom State in Suit No. HEK/45/94 on the 5th day of April, 2000.

The plaintiff in paragraph 17 of the statement of claim in the suit, claimed from the defendant the following reliefs:

(a) Payment of the sum of N104,038.60 (One hundred and four thousand and thirty eight naira, sixty kobo) being the cost of rehabilitating the (plaintiff’s) building and putting same in tenantable condition as stipulated under the Tenancy Agreement.

(b) General aggravated damages at the sum of N 195,961.40 for breach of tenancy agreement.

And the plaintiff claims the total sum of N300,000.00 (three hundred thousand Naira).

According to the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in the suit, the plaintiff was the owner of a building and premises situate at No.5 Akpanodok Street, Usung Inyang, Eket, within the jurisdiction of the court. The defendant, a limited liability company incorporated in Nigeria under the laws of Nigeria, rented the plaintiff’s said building and premises on the 13th day of March, 1992, for residential purpose for two years period at a yearly rent of N30,000.00 (thirty thousand naira) and paid the sum of N60,000.00 for the two years.

The parties (i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant) entered into a tenancy agreement dated 13th March, 1992 in respect of the rented building and premises.

Clause 6 of the Tenancy Agreement provides as follows:

All disputes, differences and questions which may at any time arise between the parties hereto or their respective (sic) or assigns touching or arising out or in respect of this agreement shall be referred to an arbitration comprising of two independent estate valuers to be agreed upon between the parties, and the decision of such arbitration shall be final and binding on both parties.

Nothing in this section/paragraph affects rent as agreed upon which remains same throughout the period of tenancy and subject to re-negotiation and changes only after the termination of the aforesaid tenancy period.”

Sometimes during the period of the tenancy, a dispute arose between the parties. The plaintiff had the impression that the defendant had packed out of the premises and was unwilling to give up possession of the building and premises by returning the keys thereto. This was followed by some correspondences between both counsel for the parties on the matter. Eventually, after the defendant had given up the possession of the premises by returning the keys of the building to the plaintiff, the plaintiff on the 25th of January, 1994 entered into the building and premises in the company of some people. There the plaintiff discovered extensive state of utter disrepair and damage to the building. The plaintiff then engaged the services of one Mr. Ime Ubah, a building contractor who prepared and submitted to the plaintiff an estimated cost for the rehabilitation of the building amounting to the sum of N104,038.60.

On the 10th of March, 1994 the plaintiff filed a writ of summons dated 9th March, 1994, in the court below against the defendant.

In paragraph 17 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed the reliefs as already set out above. On 14th April, 1994, the defendant entered a conditional appearance in the suit. Thereafter, the defendant on 31st May 1994, filed a motion on notice in the court below for stay of proceedings in the suit pending arbitration. On 29th May, 1995, the trial court delivered its ruling and granted the motion. It ordered for a stay of proceedings in the suit pending arbitration in accordance with clause 6 of the tenancy agreement.