R. A. Akingbade V. L.T. Gen. T. Y. Danjuma & Anor. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.

The facts briefly, are that the appellant and the respondents, entered into a lease agreement in respect of property No. 29 Ahmadu Bello Way, Jos, belonging to the 1st respondent, whilst the 2nd respondent was the care-taker. The lease agreement signed by the parties, expired on the 31/8/1991 and the appellant paid another N10,000.00 as one year’s rent in respect of the said property, commencing from the 1/9/1991, to end on the 31/8/1992. During the subsistence of the lease agreement, the appellant sub-let the premises to other persons without the consent of the respondents, contrary to Clause 2(g) of the lease agreement. The respondents terminated the agreement and on the 23/10/91, the 2nd respondent, in the company of his staff and two labourers, entered the premises, removed the goods therein, and locked it.

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the appellant as plaintiff took a Writ out of the High Court in Jos, in Suit No. PLD/J319/91, against the defendants (respondents) jointly and severally, praying in the Amended Statement of Claim, for

(a) N15,000 as special damages

(b) General Damages of N100,000 as aggravated damages

(c) Possession of the said premises

(d) Injunction restraining both defendants by themselves or their agents from continuing in occupation of the aid premises, and

(e) Further or other relief.

The Respondents on their part also sued the appellant in the High Court in Jos, in Suit No. PLD/J341/91, and prayed in the Amended Statement of Claim, for

(a) A declaration that the tenancy / sublease granted in favour of the defendant was determined by reason of his breach of its terms, for sub-under leasing without consent and also by the plaintiffs’ reentry of the premises in question;

(b) N20,795.00 damages being the cost of effecting repairs to remedy the damages caused to the premises by the defendant.

(c) N5,000.00 general damages.

At the hearing, both Suits were consolidated. The trial High Court in its judgment dismissed the appellant’s claims as unmeritorious. It found that the appellant had sub-let the premises without the requisite consent and had also vacated it. The right of re-entry was properly exercised since the appellant had breached the covenant. Further, that the goods removed from the said premises, were those of the sub-tenants who were there illegally, and not those of the appellant’s. It therefore granted the declaration sought by the respondents and also awarded N3,000:00 as general damages.

The appellant filed a Notice and six grounds of appeal, which are reproduced hereunder, without their particulars-