A Lagos High Court is set to decide whether renowned National Security Strategist and Armament Expert, Dr Olumide Wole-Madariola, can appeal a ruling that favoured the United Bank of Africa (UBA) in a property dispute.
Wole-Madariola, a former President of The Nigeria Shooting Federation and
Defence Strategy scholar, is seeking permission to appeal a December 3, 2024, order that reverse the eviction of UBA from his property at Lagos.
The dispute stems from a previous judgment by Magistrate L.O. Kazeem, which granted Wole-Madariola possession of his property and ordered UBA to vacate the premises due to years of unpaid rent.
However, UBA appealed the Magistrate Court’s decision to the High Court, where Justice Olalekan Oresanya issued an order staying the eviction and returning the property to its original state.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, Wole-Madariola filed a motion seeking leave to appeal the High Court’s decision.
Magistrate Kazeem had in its judgment, held that, “The claimant’s claims against the defendant’s possession of the office space at Awaye House and mesne profit at the rate of N437,500.00 per month from July 14, 2022 till possession is given up.”
He also held that the Tenancy Law of Lagos State is clear on how to get possession of any demised property.
He declared that “it is trite that proper issuance and service of relevant statutory notices entitles any claimant of a demised property to an order of possession.”
After citing a plethora of authorities, he held that: “A landlord has an unfettered legal right to terminate a tenancy upon giving adequate notice. After all, the property is his, and he can at any time retrieve it subject to the condition in the tenancy agreement.
“Once he abides by the provision of the tenancy agreement, the tenant has no choice than to vacate possession. The provision of the law is as straight and as simple as that. It is almost like the day and night changing places. What usually brings a problem between a landlord and a tenant is the giving of adequate notice.
“What constitutes adequate notice is spelt out in the leave or tenancy agreement. In other words, the landlord must give the tenant the quit notice as provided in the tenancy agreement. If the tenant refuses to quit, a court of law can, on an action by the landlord, force him out of the premises.
“The claimant effected service of statutory notice on the defendant, which DW1 confirmed to be aware of. Exh C11 was tendered without any objection from the defence, and during defence, DW1 also confirmed to be aware of the service of the statutory Notice (Exh C11) on the defendant.
“The claimant has been able to prove his claim as to order for possession, and I so hold. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to the possession from the defendant of the office space….The defendant is to vacate the office space.”
He ordered UBA Plc to pay the claimant mesne profit at the rate of N437,500 per month from July 14, 2022, until possession is given up.
On the August 16, 2024, the execution was carried out by the Sherrif department of the high court of Lagos State and UBA was evicted from the property with all their belongings.
Dissatisfied with the judgement of the lower court, UBA Plc filed an appeal in the suit marked LD/8462GCM/2024 at the High Court, wherein it asked Justice Oresanya to set aside the judgment and execution.
UBA plc filed motion against Wole-Madariola and
Assistant Chief Registrar (ACR), Deputy Sheriff Department, Sheriff Department High Court of Lagos State as first and second respondents, respectively.
On December 3, Justice Oresanya in a ruling, held that the whole and in the final analysis the dictates of justice is in favour of granting the applicant’s motion seeking to set aside “the wrongful execution of the judgment of the lower court by the second respondent”.
He insisted that the application is meritorious and succeeds accordingly as he ordered that the “wrongful execution of the judgment of the lower court delivered on April 30, 2024 in suit No. MCA/3099/2022 is hereby set aside. “
He added, “The second respondent shall stay the execution or further execution of the said judgment delivered by the lower court pending the determination of the applicant’s motion seeking leave to appeal and stay of execution in suit No. LD/5855/MJR/2024 pending before this court.”
The judge further ordered that all parties in the suit shall return to status quo ante bellum regarding the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal and stay of execution.
Wole-Madariola, through his counsel, Chief Richard Ahonaruogho (SAN) leading Bar S.A Amubikanun ,in his motion on notice dated December 16, 2024, asked court to grant him leave to seek to challenge the ruling at the appellate court.
The senior lawyer’s motion on notice was brought pursuant to Sections 6(6)(A) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended): Order 43 Rule 1 & Order 58 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
The plaintiff is also seeking an order of the court granting leave to the applicant to file his notice and grounds of Appeal against the ruling/orders of the court delivered on December 3, 2024.
In his six paragraphs affidavit and seven grounds of appeal, he prayed the court for an order, staying the enforcement and execution of the ruling/orders in the suit made against the applicant on December 3, 2024, pending the hearing and determination of the applicant’s appeal against the said ruling/orders.
He also sought “an order of injunction pending appeal restraining the first respondent, its servants, agents, or privies from enforcing or attempting to enforce the ruling of the court delivered on the December 3, 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the applicant’s appeal against the said ruling dated December 3, 2024”.
After Justice Oresanya had listened to the motion experte brought by UBA to stop the respondent from fencing the property, Chief Ahonaruogho SAN told the court that his client is a law abiding citizen who follows the rule of law.
The matter is currently under review to ensure the integrity of the process. This review will help the judiciary determine the landlord’s entitlement to the property following the legal eviction of a tenant who had unpaid rent arrears and no existing tenancy agreement at the time of eviction. Additionally, it aims to clarify the legal provisions regarding reinstating a tenant to a property post-eviction.
Justice Oresanya told the parties that the court would deliver its ruling on January 9, 2025.
