MR. Peter Oderinde V. Engr. J. A. Ayodele & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Osun State delivered by Hon. Justice Akin Oladimeji on 31st March 2010 at the Oshogbo Judicial Division.

The Appellant had at the lower court instituted an action against the present Respondents as Defendants claiming damages for trespass and injunction in the following terms:

1. The sum of One Million Naira being damages for the Defendant’s unlawful trespass unto the business premises known as Groovy Cafe and Restaurant lying and being at opposite Osogbo Grammar School, Iwo Road, Osogbo, which premises is in the lawful possession of the Plaintiff and which trespass and unlawful entry has caused damages and hardship to the Plaintiffs business.
2. An order restraining the Defendants from doing any further act that may violate the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the premises.

At the trial, the Plaintiff testified and called two (2) other witnesses and tendered some exhibits, which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits P1 – P14.

On his part, the Respondent testified for himself and called two witnesses. The Respondent tendered a document which was rejected by the trial court upon the objection of the Appellant. The trial Judge however proceeded to dismiss the claims of the Plaintiff and per his judgment delivered in Suit No. HOS/89/2008 31st March 2010 and which is contained on page 152 – 167 of the records of this appeal.

Being dissatisfied, the Plaintiff has bought this appeal upon eight grounds of appeal as contained on pages 168 – 170 of the Records. It is desirable to restate the summary of the case of the respective parties for the proper appreciation of this appeal.

The Appellant’s Case:

The Appellant is the proprietor of the Groovy Cafe and Restaurant where he carried out his hospitality business which includes a restaurant, beer parlour, night club, games and event centre, where at he has been in lawful occupation of the premises thereof as a yearly tenant for about 10 years before the action in 2008. The Appellant who was enjoying the said premises together with the open space and all appurtenances thereto, rented the said premises from one late Chief Rasaki Alli and was paying rent to him as could be seen in Exhibits P1 – P4.

After the death of the said Chief Rasaki Alli, his children through a Management Committee wrote to the Appellant in respect of the Rented Property vide Exhibit P5. The Appellant paid rent to the said Management Committee and subsequently to the firm of M. A. Laogun & Co. as the family’s Solicitors in charge of the estate of late Chief Rasaki Alli. Receipts for the payment of rent were tendered and admitted as Exhibits P6 – P9.

In January 2008, the Appellant was issued a quit notice by the law office of Remi Ayoade & Co. purportedly for the 1st Respondent as a purported new owner of the rented property.

The Plaintiff/Appellant was told by M. A. Laogun & Co, the solicitors to his landlord and the Management Committee of the Chief Rasaki Alli estate to disregard the said Notice as it was not their act and that the 1st Respondent had no such interest/title in the said property.

The Appellant wrote Exhibit P10 informing the 1st Respondent of the reaction of the Rasaki Alli family and warned against any further interference with his peaceful enjoyment of his tenancy. The said letter was admitted in evidence at the trial court as Exhibit P10.

Not done yet, the Respondent in November 2008, by the firm of Badmus Kazeem Esq., Akashic Chambers issued a Notice to quit within 7 days to the Respondent; the said letter was admitted in evidence as Exhibit P11. The Appellant’s landlord, through the late family again re-assured him to ignore the Notice. This he did, but not without responding by a letter to the Respondent through his solicitors.

Notwithstanding all the aforesaid, the 2nd Respondent led a group of people to the premises and purporting to be acting for the 1st Respondent, on November 16th 2008, made a fence round it and blocked the access or entrance thereto, such that no motor vehicle could enter or park nor the space for the use of customers be used.