Hilda Josef V. Chief A. S. Adole (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A., (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This Appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory delivered on the 9th day of July, 2007 by Hon. Justice S. C. Oriji.

The brief fact of the case is that the Defendant/Appellant , the occupant of the house situated at No. 18B Vaal Street, off Rhine Street, Maitama, Abuja, rented the house for a period of two years with an option to renew for another two years. The agreed rent was N2.5 million per annum and for two years a total of N5million, out of which the Appellant paid the sum of N4 million. The two year term was to run from 2nd November, 2004 to 2nd November, 2006.

The Appellant alleges that at the time of payment, she was neither issued with any receipt nor given a tenancy agreement. The Respondent however brought a tenancy agreement after a year but the Appellant refused to signed the agreement because the true and proper representation of the oral agreement of the parties was not incorporated into the tenancy agreement i.e. the renovation work already carried out by the Appellant before the tenancy agreement.

The Appellant also alleges that her refusal to sign the tenancy agreement and/or or give in to the inordinate demands of the Respondent, caused the Respondent to instruct his Solicitors to write a letter dated 13th July, 2006 to the Appellant and then subsequently a notice of intention to apply to recover possession of the property. The Respondent as Plaintiff instituted an action claiming among others an order of immediate possession of the premises, the balance sum of N1million, mesne profit and the cost of the action.

The Appellant at the trial Court claimed that she rented the premises and entered into an agreement with the Respondent to renovate the house to suit the purpose she intends to use it for, while the cost of renovation would be deducted from the next rent at the end of the current tenancy and that in furtherance of this agreement the Respondent gave the Appellant his building plan so as to enable the Appellant renovate the said house to suit her purpose.

The Respondent on the other hand denied ever agreeing with the Appellant to renovate the house or to refund the expenses on renovation to the Appellant or deduct it from the subsequent rent. He also testified that the building plan given to the Appellant was based on the Appellant’s request to see if she can stop the vibration from the adjoining flat but she could not.

In his judgment, the learned trial judge came to the following conclusions:

“1. That the renovation works carried out by the Appellant could not have been related to the reasons why the Respondent gave the Appellant the said building plans;

2. That the Appellant cannot he entitled to compensation from the Respondent for the renovations carried out since they were not carried out with the consent of the Respondent as required under Sections 14 and 15 of the Recovery of Premises Act LFN 1990;
3. That from the pleadings and evidence the Respondent is entitled to recovery of his premises from the Appellant;
4. That the Respondent is equally entitled to the sum of N1 million being arrears of rent for the term which ended on 1/11/06;
5. That the Respondent is not entitled to any mesne profit since he did not state how much he is claiming in his Statement of claim; and
6. The Respondent is entitled to the cost of N6,000.”

The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Judgment, has appealed to this Court. From the Appellant’s original four Grounds of Appeal and the additional Ground of Appeal, five issues were distilled for the determination of this Appeal. They are as follows:

“1. Whether Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘D’ satisfied the requirements the Requirements of valid notices to be issued before an action for recovery of possession can be maintained?

2. Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence adduced by the Appellant vis-a-vis the Respondent before arriving at his final decision that the Respondent is entitled to recover possession of No. 18b, Vaal Street, off Rhine Street Maitama, Abuja irrespective of the improvements/renovation works done by the Appellant?
3. Whether having regard to the oral evidence of the parties and the fact that the tenancy agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent was virtually oral, non-compliance with sections 14 and 15 of the Recovery of Premises Act LFN 1990 was capable enough to disallow the Appellant from being entitled to compensation/refund for renovation works done on the premises of the subject matter in dispute?
4. Whether decision of the trial judge was based on the weight of evidence adduced by the parties before the Court?
5. Whether the Respondent Solicitor was authorised in writing before the issuance and service of Exhibit ‘D’ which is the Notice of Owner’s intention to apply to recover possession?”

On behalf of the Respondent, the following Issue, were distilled for the determination of this Appeal as follows:

“1. Whether or not Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘V’ are adequate to determine the Appellant’s tenancy having regards to the pleadings filed before the trial Court and the evidence thereof.

2. Whether or not the judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence before it.
3. Were parties to a tenancy relationship has an agreement, how is the tenancy regulated?”

The issues distilled by both the Appellant and Respondent for the determination of this Appeal are similar. However, I shall adopt the following issues for the determination of this Appeal: