Seven-up Bottling Company V. Mr. Olumuyiwa Peter Akinware (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justice, Ekiti State presided over by Hon. Justice M.O. Bodunde delivered on the 25th January, 2007 granting the reliefs sought by the Respondent save for the relief for special damages which he found not proved and also an order repossession of the demised properties with immediate effect.

The Respondent as the Plaintiff at the Lower court filed this suit against the Defendant now Appellant in the present appeal. By paragraph 25 of the 4th Amended Statement of Claim filed on the 20th July, 2006, Respondent claims the following reliefs against the Appellant as follows:-

(a) Declaration that having been abandoned by the Defendant’ the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the demised premises known and referred to as 127 Ajilosun street Ado-Ekiti in so far as the Defendant has thereby breached the covenant to use and maintain the demised premised (sic) in good tenantable repair and condition.

(b) An order for immediate possession of the demised premised (sic) situate and being at 127 Ajilosun Street, Ado-Ekiti.

(c) The sum of Six Million Naira (N6, 000,000:00) being special and general damages for breach of covenant of repairing the demised Premises.

PARTICULARS:

(i)Special damages: Cost of affecting (sic) repairs to the damaged parts of the demised premises-N3, 127,487

(ii) General damages: -N2, 872,513

Total = 6, 000,000.00

The facts given rise to the present claim is that by a lease agreement entered into on the 1st June, 1989 between the Respondent as the lessor and the Appellant as the lessee’ the lessor leased to the lessee his property known as 127, Ajilosun street, Ado-Ekiti for a period of 10 years at an annual rent of N8, 000 per annum.

The Appellant paid the rent on the property up to 31st May, 1999.

The terms and conditions governing the lease are set out in the lease agreement tendered before the trial court as Exhibit ‘A’. In 1999, a supplementary agreement was executed by the parties which conferred some other benefits on the Respondent. The supplementary agreement was admitted by the trial court as Exhibit ‘D’.

The demised premises was at all times preceding the making of Exhibit ‘A’ a warehouse while the Appellant took its lease for the purpose of its being used as its depot in Ado-Ekiti- Before the expiration of the lease, the Respondent instituted this action specifically on the 12th December, 1996 when there was more than two years left on the lease agreement.