Appeal court backs Odili in Bishop Oluwole, V.I. property tenancy case

The legal tussle involving the validity of tenancy in respect of the premises known as 27A Bishop Oluwole Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State has been rested by an Appeal Court sitting in Lagos, following the dismissal of an appeal filed before it by Essential Logistics Limited.

Essential Logistics Limited, a tenant in the property had challenged the judgment of the Lagos State High Court, delivered in favour of Chief Victor Odili and Trevi Foundation Limited (the respondents) on September 17, 2009.

In the judgment, the trial Justice Owolabi Afis Dabiri essentially dismissed the appellant’s claims and granted the respondents’ counter-claim for the recovery of the premises.

Dispute in the matter arose when Essential Logistics Limited, a tenant of business mogul, Chief Victor Odili, in the property situated at 27A Bishop Oluwole Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, commenced an action at the High Court of Lagos State vide a writ of summons dated August 22,2007.

In the suit against Chief Victor Odili and Trevi Foundation Ltd, the plaintiff was basically asking the Court to declare that Chief Odili had not validly determined his tenancy in respect of the premises and as such cannot without due process of law eject it from the property. Essential Logistics Limited also sought for an injunction restraining Dr. Odili and his agents ejecting it from the said premises.

In the writ of summons, the company has sought a declaration that the 1st Defendant has not validly determined the Claimant’s tenancy in respect of the premises known as 27A Bishop Oluwole Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State and as such cannot without due process of law eject the Claimant there from or compel it to give up possession of same.

It also sought an injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants their agents, servants, privies assigns and successor-in-title from forcefully or unlawfully ejecting the claimant from the premises known as 27A Bishop Oluwole Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.

In response, the respondent filed a statement of defence and a counter claim claiming among other things, a declaration that the Tenancy Agreement dated May 1, 2005 executed between the counter-Claimant and the Defendant to the counter Claim is binding on the parties.

The defendants also sought a   declaration that the tenancy of the defendant to the counter – claim as contained in the Tenancy Agreement dated 1st day of May, 2007 had been validly determined in accordance with the provisions of the said agreement as well as an order directing the defendant, (Essential Logistics) to the counter claim to deliver unencumbered possession of the 1st defendant/Counter-Claimant forthwith.

Upon exhaustive arguments by the parties in which Dr Fabian Ajogwu, represented the respondents, the Lagos State High Court however refused to grant the reliefs sought for by Essential Logistics.

Aggrieved, the company lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal on September 29, 2009 essentially requesting that the Judgment of the Lagos State High Court be set aside.

But affirming the Judgment of the Lagos State High Court (coram O.A. Dabiri, J), the Court of Appeal panel led by Honourable Justice Sidi Dauda Bage J.C.A held amongst other grounds that having obtained possession of the premises, used it to its advantage or benefit, for whatever purposes, and no doubt gained during the period of the sustenance of the tenancy agreement, Essential Logistics Ltd should not be allowed to resile from its obligation under the contract agreement because of a deficiency in documentation, which from the facts made to find an escape route for his obligations under the contract.

The appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.

In the verdict the appellate court held on the mode of service of statutory notices, that it is the law that statutory notices must be served personally on the tenant and not otherwise.

The only exception to that where the tenant cannot be found to effect personal service on, then a copy of the said notice may be posted at some conspicuous place in the premises sought to be recovered. However, before the court would deem same as proper service, the Plaintiff must convince it that several exhaustive and frantic attempts were made to serve tenant without success.

On the determination of a fixed tenancy, the court also held that, it is the law that when time fixed for the tenancy elapses, the relationship of landlord and tenant automatically terminates and the landlord if he so wishes, may take possession through the due process of law after serving on the tenant notice of owners intention to apply to recover possession (i.e. seven days notice).