Prince Adetunji Balogun & Ors. V. Albaji W. B. Alli-owe & Ors. (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEREMI, J.C.A.

The appellants, as plaintiffs, in the court below (High Court of Justice, Ikeja, Lagos State) claimed against the respondents as defendants in the court below, the following reliefs:-

“(a) A declaration that the plaintiffs are still lawful occupants/tenants at the lock-up shops situate lying and being at Planking Road, Aro-Omaba, Allotment, off Medical Road, Lagos whose landlords are the 1st -7th defendants’ family while the 8th defendant their representative, overseer and caretaker.

(b) An order of specific performance on the defendants to give effect to the oral agreement entered into with the plaintiffs vides the 8th defendant on or around October, 1985.

(c) An injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the said lock-up shops from the plaintiffs, from harassing the plaintiffs or from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession of the said premises in any manner.”

Pleadings in terms of statement of claim and statement of defence, in accordance with the rules of court, were filed and exchanged between the parties. After taking evidence of the witnesses and the addresses of counsel on both sides, the trial Judge (Justice A. Ade Alabi) in a reserved judgment, while granting relief (a) and dismissing reliefs (b) and (c) said inter alia:-

“As the essential terms of this agreement are in dispute, there cannot be said to be a valid lease or tenancy agreement capable of being enforced by an order or decree of specific performance. In the result, I hold the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree of specific performance in their favour…

Having considered the demeanor, the personalities, the reactions to questions in the course of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the defence witnesses seem to me to be more in consonance with reason, prudence and rationality than the almost ridiculous claims of the plaintiffs. In the result, it is my finding that what the parties agreed upon are for each to build his shop in blocks, use the shop for one year free of rent and thereafter pay a rent of N100:00 per month…

I am satisfied that the plaintiffs are persons in whom a right to relief was alleged to exist jointly and severally in respect of or arising out of series of transactions. In any case, I am not aware that any miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the fact of their having come together and my attention has not been drawn to any such miscarriage of justice…

“… The only right which the plaintiffs in this case have established is the right of a statutory tenant. The right as explained earlier in this judgment enables the tenant to enjoy protection and security of tenure. The tenant is protected from eviction except in accordance with the law. The plaintiffs have so far failed to establish any evidence of harassment or disturbance by the defendants. On the contrary the defendants have already commenced the process of recovery of possession by serving necessary notices to quit. I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to an order of injunction in the manner prayed or at all.”

Aggrieved by the decision, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment incorporating one ground of appeal which is as follows:-

“(1) The Judgment is against the weight of evidence.”

With the leave of this Court, two additional grounds of appeal were added and they are in the following terms less the particulars:-

(2) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that, the parties agreed to pay a rent of N100:00 per month when there was conflicting evidence on the issues by the defendants.