Goddy Umeobi V. Chief A.e. Otukoya (1978)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ANIAGOLU,  J.S.C. 

After the conclusion of arguments by counsel on this appeal on 20th March 1978 we allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court including the order for costs and injunction and awarded costs to the defendant appellant. We now give our reasons for so doing.

In the claim which was instituted in the Lagos High Court and framed in trespass the plaintiff claimed 2000 “A/C0376 Balogun & Alatishe & Co. Barristers & Solicitors special and general damages for trespass allegedly committed by the defendant on 14th January 1972 on which day he was said to have forcibly entered the back portion of the plaintiff’s shop known as L.E.D.B. shop 5, No.4 Nnamdi Azikiwe Street, Lagos, damaging the plaintiff’s properties. The plaintiff also claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant his agents and servants from further acts of trespass to the said portion of the plaintiff’s shop.

Pleadings were ordered and filed. In paragraphs 3,6,7 and 8 the plaintiff had explained, rather in a sketchy form having regard to the facts which later emerged from the statement of defence and the evidence, how he came to possess the shop in dispute. For their importance we set out these paragraphs as follows:

“3. The Plaintiff had been a tenant in possession since 1967 of a shop known as L.E.D.B. shop No.5 situate at 4, Nnamdi Azikiwe Street, Lagos.

6. In 1970 the Lagos Executive Development Board, dispensing with intermediaries, directed all occupiers of shops in the area to pay rent directly to the Lagos Executive Development Board.
7. On 20th day of August, 1970, the Lagos Executive Development Board wrote to the Plaintiff requiring him to pay rent in respect of the shop directly to the said Lagos Executive Development Board.
8. The Plaintiff had since August 1970 been paying rents in respect of the said shop regularly to the Lagos Executive Development Board and he had so paid up to and including March, 1972.”

The plaintiff did not state in the statement of claim who these “intermediaries” were but the picture became clearer from the facts disclosed in the statement of defence and from the evidence. In paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the statement of defence the defendant claimed the shop and the structures built on No.4 Nnamdi Azikiwe Street.

These paragraphs read:

“6. The defendant is the tenant of the L.E.D.B. in respect of the piece of land on which the property known as 4, Nnamdi Azikiwe Street situates and pays rents.

7. The defendant built the structures on the property including the shop and the factory which the plaintiff now claims. The defendant was in possession of the premises until he left for the Eastern Region of Nigeria during the political crisis in the country in 1967.

8.The defendant’s servant and agent took over the responsibilities and the care of the premises in the absence of the defendant.

9. The servants of the defendant lived in the Factory which is directly behind the shop now occupied by the plaintiff. ”

The defence later got leave of court to amend the said paragraph 6 of the statement of defence and amended it as follows:

“6. The defendant is the tenant of the L.E.D.B. in respect of the piece of land on which the property known as 4, Nnamdi Azikiwe Street situate and pays rent. Two photocopies of the L.E.D.B. plans showing the layout and the building of the property are attached. ”

The defendant went further to counterclaim against the plaintiff for 2,000 “A/C0376 Balogun & Alatishe & Co. Barristers & Solicitors general damages for wrongful entry by the plaintiff into the said shop in dispute. The counterclaim reads:

“COUNTER-CLAIM

The Defendant claims against the Plaintiff the sum of 2,000pounds “A/C0376 Balogun & Alatishe & Co. Barristers & Solicitors being General Damages for wrongful entry by the Plaintiff on to the Defendant’s shop and factory forming part of the property known and described as No.4, Nnamdi Azikwe, Lagos and for an injunction restraining the plaintiff, his servants, workmen and agents from entering into the shop and factory and demolishing the walls, the entrance and any part of the shop and the factory or from in any way interfering with the Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the said shop and factory. ”