A High Court in Abuja has ordered the eviction of a pharmacist, Kelechi Osuji, from his residence at Same Global Estate, Lokogoma District, for owing rent since 2016.
In suit number FHC/HC/BW/CV/721/2016, Mr. Osuji sued his landlord, Mr. O. Ifedapo, and the caretaker, Mr. Tajudeen Oyerinde, seeking 10 million naira in compensation.
He alleged they harassed and embarrassed him by serving a one-month quit notice, among other claims.
Mr. Osuji argued his landlord should have given a six-month notice, not one month
READ ALSO: Democratic senators call on Fed to cut interest rates over high housing costs
He said the tenancy agreement had expired in October 2015 and was no longer binding.
The landlord countersued, accusing Osuji of violating the tenancy agreement.
He sought 900,000 naira in unpaid rent since November 2015, calculated at N75,000.00 per month from November 1, 2015 to November 1, 2016.
Part of the counter reliefs read, ” An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Plaintiff/ Defendant to Counter-Claim to vacate and yield up possession of the let premises being Flat 3, Block C20, Same Global Estate, Lokogoma District, Abuja, forthwith.
“An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Plaintiff/ Defendant to Counter-Claim to pay to the 1st Defendant/Counter-Claimant mesne profit of N900, 000.00 (Nine Hundred Thousand Naira) only, calculated at N75, 000.00 (Seventy Five Thousand Naira) only per month from 1st of November, 2015 to 1 November, 2016.
“An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Plaintiff/ Defendant to Counter-Claim to pay to the 1st Defendant/ Counter-Claimant the sum of N83, 333.00 (Eighty Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Three Naira) only per month from the 1st of November, 2016 until vacant possession of the premises is yielded to the 1 Defendant/Counter-Claimant.”
READ ALSO: Democratic senators call on Fed to cut interest rates over high housing costs
In his judgment dated October 6, 2023, and seen by correspondent, Justice K.N. Ogbonnaya of the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish and prove his case before the court
The judge held that the tenant’s submissions were inconsistent and were contradictory based on evidence placed before the court.
“To start with, there is no doubt that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had a tenancy agreement for one year which ended on 31st October, 2015. The plaintiff was supposed to vacate the premises and give up possession. He held over. The amount for the tenancy was certain and when divided by 12 will give the exact amount to be paid per month. The plaintiff overstayed for the initial two months.
“It is the Law, the Rule and has been decided in a plethora of cases that Mesne Profit starts counting once a tenant has held over the premises after the expiration of Tenancy.
“In this case, the extra stay was not defined as a yearly tenancy because it is not. Therefore, the issue of six months’ notice cannot come up. So also, the argument of the plaintiff that he was not given the required Statutory six months’ notice is misconceived because he is not a yearly Tenant per se though the stay was for one year. It is not defined. There was no room or agreement signed and written between the parties. The plaintiff did not prove that there was any such agreement. He knew that his stay would end on 31st December, 2015 without hope or intention to renew,” the judge said.
The judge noted the original one-year tenancy ended in October 2015 and Osuji stayed for extra two months based on an agreement.
The judge added that the plaintiff has no right to insist that the landlord should give him six months’ notice because, “he knew that he would leave by 31st December, 2023. The Agreement was not part of the expired Tenancy that is why it was based on a new and distinct fee. In the absence of a new Tenancy the old Tenancy was the only measuring yarrow and stick.
“The Defendants/Counter-Claimants have been able to defend this case and have also been able to prove their counter-claim and are entitled to the reliefs sought in their counter-claim in this Suit,” the judge ruled while granting three reliefs by the landlord.
