1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT APO ON THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON, JUSTICE U.P. KEKEMEKE SUIT NO: FCT/HC/CV/175/14

COURT CLERK: JOSEPH BALAMI ISHAKU & ORS.

BETWEEN:

REGAB NIGERIA LTD …………………..…………….…PLAINTIFF

AND

EASTWIND ENTERPRISES NIG. LTD …………….….DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff’s claim vide its Writ of Summons and Statement

of Claim dated and filed on the 13th day of October, 2014 is

as follows:

a. The sum of N2,119,435.00k (Two Million, One Hundred

and Nineteen Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty –

Five Naira) only being mesne profit calculated at the

prevailing annual rent of N7,000,000.00 (Seven Million

Naira) per annual from the 11th of May, 2014 when the

tenancy expired to the 30th of August, 2014 when the

Defendant yielded up vacant possession.

b. Special damages in the sum of N4,198,530.02k for

breach of the Defendants covenant to restore the

property to a tenantable state which includes

N1,670,000.00 being assessed cost of replacing 4

chandeliers.

2

c. The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) damages

for breach of the Defendants covenant not to sublet the

premises without the landlords written consent.

d. The sum of N254,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Four

Thousand Naira) being outstanding charges for

consumption of water incurred by the Defendant.

e. An order directing the sale of the Defendant’s

generating set and other equipment taken in lien, upon

the failure, neglect or refusal of the Defendant to

liquidate its indebtedness.

f. The cost of the action.

The Writ of Summons and all other processes were served

on the Defendant. The Defendant entered appearance and

filed its Statement of Defense and counter claim on

17/11/14. In the said counter claim the Defendant claims

the following:

1. A declaration that the lien on the Defendant’s properties

as averred in paragraphs 10 & 15 of the Statement of

Claim is illegal, null and void.

2. The sum of N3,790,600.00 only as special damages,

being the value of the Defendants properties confiscated

by Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed a reply to the Defendant’s Statement of

Defense and counterclaim on 21/11/14. The Plaintiff

called one witness in proof of its case. He is one Agbese

Philips. He stated orally that he resides at No. 55 Paraku

Crescent, Wuse, Abuja. That he is a Business Man and

an International Photographer. That he deposed to a

3

witness Statement on Oath. He adopted same as his oral

evidence.

The evidence of the Plaintiff’s Witness succinctly is as

follows. That he is a member of the Plaintiff and serve as

its Administrative Manager. That by an agreement made

on 11/05/11, the Plaintiff demised all the premises.

Described as a Six Bedroom detached duplex with boys

quarters situate at No. 30 Agadez Crescent, Wuse II,

Abuja together with appurtenances to the Defendant for a

term of two years certain commencing from the 11th day of

May, 2011 to the 10th of May, 2013 for a consideration of

N5,900,000.00 for the first year and N6,000,000.00 for

the second year payable by the Defendant on or before the

31st of July, 2011 but with the caveat that if the

Defendant neglects to pay for the 2nd year within the

stipulated time, the tenancy shall be a year certain. That

the tenancy expired on the 11th of May, 2013 and was

renewed for another term of one year commencing from

the 12th of May, 2013 and to terminate on the 11th of May,

2014 at a renewed rent of N7,000,000 per annum and

upon the same terms, except for the rent. That prior to

the expiration of the renewed term of the tenancy, the

parties failed to agree to a renewal of the tenancy for a

further term of one year and thereafter the Defendant was

served notices to vacate the premises upon the expiration

of its tenancy.

That while in occupation of the demised premises, the

Defendant failed to abide by the terms of the tenancy

4

agreement and in particular breached the covenant by

subletting part of the demised premises without the

written consent of the landlord which led to the

accelerated deterioration of the premises and undue

pressure on facilities within the premises provided for only

one tenant. That at the expiration of the Defendant’s

tenancy, it failed to yield up possession to the landlord

from 11th of May, 2014 to 30th of August, 2014 when it

vacated which is a total period of 111 days. That when

the Defendant eventually vacated the premises on the 30th

day of August, 2014, it breached the covenant to yield up

possession and put the premises in a good and tenantable

condition. The Defendant left the premises in a

dilapidated state with many of the landlords fixtures

either removed or damaged especially a set of three crystal

chandeliers which were removed while making the fourth

useless and sundry articles and electrical fittings. That

the Defendant and Plaintiff searched for identical

chandeliers to replace the three that were removed but

without success.

That the Defendant earlier wrote to the Plaintiff for

consent to make alteration to the premises which involves

removal of the landlord’s fittings with a promise to restore

the premises to its original state. The Plaintiff consented

to the said alteration by its letter dated 18/04/11. That

when the Defendant vacated on the 30/8/14, it left its

power generating set and some sauna and steam

equipments.

5

The Plaintiff Solicitor wrote the Defendant vide a letter

dated 9th September, 2014 demanding payment as to

cover the three months and eleven days when the

Defendant remained in occupation and also requesting a

terminal joint inspection in order to ascertain the extent of

damages and works to be carried out to bring the

premises back to a tenantable state. That the Defendant

refused to respond and failed to honour the invitation to

conduct a joint terminal inspection before the end of

September 2014 which prompted the Plaintiff to refuse

permission to the Defendant to remove its power

generator as well as sauna and steam machinery pending

when the Defendant will liquidate its indebtedness to the

Plaintiff and restore the property to a tenantable state.

That the Defendant also failed to abide by covenant

stipulated in the tenancy agreement to pay rates, taxes,

water, environmental, tenement and electricity bills. That

the Defendant is owing a total sum of N254,000,00 for

water bill above.

That the Plaintiff engaged the service of Tonees Consult

limited architects and builders to carry out a detailed

investigation and to issue assessment of the cost of

renovation which assessed same to be N2,528,530.20k.

The same firm assessed the cost of procurement and

installation of the specialized electrical fittings which

includes the chandeliers to the tune of N1,670,000.00.

That by its refusal to restore the premises to a tenantable

condition. The Plaintiff has suffered special damages on

the terms set out in the assessment of cost of restoring

6

the property to its original state. The witness wants the

Court to grant the Plaintiff’s prayers.

The Plaintiff’s witness tendered the following documents

as Exhibits A – A5:

1. Tenancy agreement between Plaintiff & Defendant.

2. Letter from Defendant to Plaintiff.

3. Letter from Plaintiff Solicitor.

4. Another letter from the Plaintiff’s Solicitor dated

9/09/14.

5. Letter written to the Plaintiff for renovation dated

30/09/24.

6. Another letter written by Tonees Consult on the same

date.

Under cross examination, the witness says he is a Director

of the Plaintiff’s Company. To a question he answered that

the Defendant moved out because they were expanding. To

another question, he answered that the Defendant wanted

the property for business. That parties entered into one

written agreement and that Exhibit A is the agreement

which commenced from 11/05/11 – 10/05/13. That

Exhibit A does not cover the period between 11/05/13 –

11/05/14. That the Defendant paid rent based on a verbal

agreement. That before the expiration of the rent he asked

his Solicitor to serve notice.

To another question, he answered that some of the

Defendant’s properties are still in the premises. That there

was no time, he stopped the Defendant from collecting her

7

property. That he instituted the action before the Defendant

left the property. To a further question, he answered that

Tonees Consult is a Licensed Building Firm which he

contracted to evaluate the damages done and cost of

renovation to be done. That the said Exhibit A5 is signed by

the Principal Architect. That the company is an expert in

Architectural Design.

He answered that he cannot defend Exhibit A4 and A5

because he is not an expert in that field. That he received a

call early in August. That people are coming to the property.

That the subtenant is not in Court. That the property is

being used for Beauty Parlor & Spar and Restaurant. The

above is the case of the Plaintiff. The Defendant opened its

case and called only one witness in Defense and in proof of

the counter claim. She is Joy Leo Pepple. That she is a

Business Woman. That she lives at Drive 4 House 103

Prince and Princess Estate. That on the 17th day of

November, 2013, she deposed to Witness Statement on

Oath. She adopted same as her Oral Evidence.

In the said Witness Statement on Oath, she deposes that the

one year term which commenced on 12th May, 2013 was not

on the same terms as that of 11th May, 2011. That the

Defendant was not served with valid notice to quit. That

there was never a tenancy agreement much less a covenant

against subletting. The Defendant deposes that there were

no subtenants on the premises to warrant undue pressure

on facilities warranting accelerated deterioration. That the

Defendant was at every material time lawfully in occupation

of the demised premises till its forceful eviction on 28/08/14

8

in that they were prevented access to the premises with their

properties still in it. That although there was no subsisting

covenant to keep the premises in a particular manner, the

parties by a letter dated 15/04/11 and 18/04/11 agreed to

an alteration on the property and a restoration at the

expiration of the tenancy.

That at the expiration of the rent, the Plaintiff took over

possession of the premises without due process of law and

deprived it access into the premises thereby frustrating all

efforts at returning the premises to its state but regrets that

it had no opportunity to remove some of his properties i.e

30KVA Generating Set, Sauna Steam Machine, An air

conditioner, AMR Water Meter, Electrical Fittings,

Interlocking Tiles, 5 Doors, Shade Cover etc, Even though it

was maintaining the premises which was in a good and

tenantable condition. That Plaintiff made the demised

premises uninhabitable or useless in that in a bid to

stampede the Defendant out of the premises as far back as

March, 2014, it started parking on the premises building

materials such as sand and chippings to its disgust so much

so that the Defendant could not bear it and started removing

its properties but before the Defendant concluded, the

Plaintiff mobilized thugs/touts to prevent its staff from

removing all his properties hence cannot remove his fittings

and replacing the fixtures and fittings which were removed

and kept aside as agreed.

That it is not its making that it did not refix any fixture or

fittings that it ought to refix neither is it indebted to the

Plaintiff in any sum as rent or damages rather is the Plaintiff

9

that is holding onto its fixtures and fittings and other

properties earlier mentioned. That Plaintiff has waived its

right to any terminal inspection if at all it was entitled to

any. That although there was neither a tenancy agreement

nor a covenant, the Defendant conscientiously paid all bills

during its occupation. That the premises was in good and

tenantable condition at the time of the Plaintiff’s forceful

takeover on 28/08/14. That the assessment is a fluke and

thus unreliable.

That the chandeliers removed were safely kept in a store

room in the premises. She is not sure if they are there and

in what state as they were old and rickety and not befitting

of the property. That the Defendant has done no wrong and

therefore not liable to the Plaintiff in any damages or special

damages as claimed neither is Plaintiff entitled to an order

directing the sale of the Defendant’s generating set or any

property belonging to the Defendant in possession of the

Plaintiff or any cost. That prior to the commencement of

the 1st term of the tenancy, it had carried out extensive

renovation on the demised premises, inside various

improvements on the property and even fixed interlocking

tiles to further beautify and enhance its value. The Plaintiff

in appreciation of the upgraded states of its property gave

the Defendant a discount of N100,000.00 on the rent of

N6,000,000.00 for the first term.

That throughout the period of the tenancy, the Plaintiff

harassed and threatened the Defendant with several

unwarranted Notice to Quit and of Owner’s Intention to

Recover Possession. That Plaintiff took lien on its properties

10

and refused it any access to the premises. The total sum of

properties are N3,790,000 which includes (i). 30KVA

Generator Set (ii). Sauna Steam Machine (iii). Electrical

Fittings (iv). Water Meter (v). Interlocking Tiles (vi). 5 Doors.

The DW1 tendered the Exhibits B – B2: water bills. Exhibits

C – C3 and D – D5. Under Cross Examination, the Witness

states that the premises was occupied by the Defendant.

That she was given a valuable discount of N100,000 for the

works carried out as stated in paragraph 15 of her Oath.

That she moved out of the property in April. That her staffs

moved out on 28/08/14. That she was not there when they

were moving out. She thinks they used pick up.

To a question she answered that the doors were behind the

security post. That it is the chandeliers that she cannot

find. That Exhibit D was made for Madam Joy while the

rest were made for Hair Republic. That Exhibit D1 have two

addresses and two different names. To another question,

she answered that she requested for permission to alter the

building to her taste and she was given permission. That

she promised to return the property to its original state.

That she was not given the time to hand over the key. To

another question, she answered that the security guard in

the premises was hired by her but she does not know if he is

still there when she moved out. That she paid 11/05/11

and left August 28, 2014. To a further question, she

answered that her business was not doing well. That she

was not allowed to put the property into its original state.

The above is the case of the Defendant.

11

The Counsel to both parties adopted their Written

Addresses. The Defendant’s Written Address is dated

16/02/16 and filed the same date, while the reply on Point

of Law is dated 17/03/16. The Defendant Counsel raised

two issues for determination:

1. Whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently proved its case so

as to be entitled to its claim for mesne profit and

damages.

2. Whether the continuous deposit of said and other

building materials, the forceful and unlawful takeover of

the premises during the pendency of the Defendant’s

tenancy and purported lien on the Defendant’s

properties, constitute a tortuous act of nuisance and

self help.

The Plaintiff also raised two issues for determination:

1. Whether the Defendant should pay for the one hundred

and eleven days it stayed on the premises between the

10th day of May, 2014 and the 28th of August, 2014 as

mesne Profit.

2. Whether the Defendant should pay the assessed cost of

putting the property in a tenantable state having regard

to the circumstance of this case.

I have carefully read the Written Addresses of Counsel and

considered same. The Plaintiff’s two issues can be

subsumed in the Defendant’s first issue. In the

12

circumstance, I shall determine this suit based on the

issues raised by the Defendant in its Final Written Address:

1. Whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently proved its case so

as to be entitled to its claim for mesne Profit and

damages.

2. Whether the continuous deposit of said and other

building material, the forceful and/unlawful takeover of

the premises during the pendency of the Defendant’s

tenancy and the purported lien on the Defendant’s

properties constitute tortuous act of nuisance and self

help.

By Section 131 – 133 of the Evidence Act 2011:

“Whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal

right or liability dependent on the existence of fact which he

asserts must prove that those facts exist”.

When a person is bond to prove the existence of any facts, it

is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. The

burden of proof in a suit or proceedings lies on that person

who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

The burden of proof is on the party who asserts a fact to

prove same, for he who asserts must prove. The standard of

proof of course is on the preponderance of evidence.

See. BRAIMAH VS. ABASI (1998) 13 NWLR (PT. 581) 167

SC.

ALHAJI OTARU & SONS LTD VS. IDRIS (1999) 6 NWLR

(PT. 606) 330 SC.

13

The Plaintiff’s first claim is for sum of N2,119,435.00 only

being mesne profit calculated at the prevailing annual rent

of N7,000,000.00 per annum from the 11th day of May, 2014

when the tenancy expired to the 30th August, 2014 when the

Defendant yielded up possession which is a total of 111 days

at the daily rate of N19,178.00k. In proof thereof, the

Plaintiff tendered Exhibit A. It is a tenancy agreement

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant commencing from

the 11th day of May, 2011 to the 10th day of May, 2013. The

Plaintiff evidence is that at the expiration of the tenanvy

created by Exhibit A, the tenancy was renewed for another

year. Commencing from 12th May, 2013 to 11th of May,

2014 at a renewed rent of N7 Million.

Under cross examination, the Plaintiff’s witness has said

Exhibit A did not cover 11/05/13 – 11/05/14. That the

Defendant paid rent based on a verbal agreement. The

Defendant’s rent in the previous tenancy agreement Exhibit

A is N5,900,000 only, while the rent was to be for N6 Million

in the following year. The agreement was for two years

certain. At the expiration of the said term, the Plaintiff

evidence is that the tenancy was renewed for a year. I find

as a fact that the previous tenancy was different from the

latter tenancy in content and character. The latter tenancy

was for one year. The rent was for N7 Million. In the

circumstance, I accept the evidence of the Plaintiff’s witness

elicited under cross examination that Exhibit A did not cover

the tenancy period of 11/05/13 – 11/05/14 but was based

on an oral agreement. The Plaintiff’s evidence is that at the

expiration of the tenancy in May, 2014, the parties failed to

agree on a renewal of the tenancy for a further term of one

14

year and thereafter the Defendant was served with notice.

There is no evidence of notices issued and or served on the

Defendant. No wonder the Plaintiff’s witness under cross

examination said he asked his Solicitor to serve notice but

could not produce the said notice. However there is no

dispute that the Defendant’s tenancy was renewed for

another term of one year.

The Defendant in its Statement of Defence and counterclaim

as per Paragraph 1 states that it admits paragraphs 1, 2 & 7

of the Statement of Claim. In the circumstance what is

admitted need no further proof. Paragraph 2 of the

Statement of Claim which the Defendant admitted states:

2.“The tenancy expired on the 11th day of May,

2013 and was renewed for another term of one

year commencing from the 12th of May, 2013 to

terminate on 11th of May, 2014 at a renewed rent

of N7 Million…”

There was a tenancy agreement between the Plaintiff and

Defendant which expired on 11/05/14, the evidence is that

as a result of disagreement, the tenancy was not renewed

but the Defendant held over and eventually vacated on 30th

August, 2014, the Defendant is also ad idem on the fact that

it vacated but on 28/08/14. From the evidence before me

the verbal tenancy was for one year. It is settled law that

before a tenant is ejected from the premises he lawfully

occupies, he must be served with the prescribed statutory

notice to determine the tenancy. The duration of the notice

will depend on the nature of the tenancy or such period as

otherwise agreed by the parties.

15

See IHENACHO VS. UZOCHUKWU (1997) 2 NWLR (PT.

487) 257 at 259-260 SC.

Mesne profit on the other hand are the rents and profits

which a trespasser incurs during his occupation of the

premises and which he must pay over to the true owner as

compensation for the tort which he has committed: See

Recovery of Premises Act (Interpretation Section).

A Claim for mesne profit can only be made when the

tenancy of the tenant has duly determined and he becomes

a trespasser.

See ODUTOLA VS. PAPERSACK NIG. LTD (2006) 18

NWLR (PT1012) 470 SC.

AFRICAN PETROLEUM LTD VS. OWODUNNI (1991) 8

NWLR (PT.210) 391 SC.

METAL CONSTRUCTION (W.A) VS. ABODERIN (1998) 8

NWLR (PT.563) 568 SC.

There is no doubt the defendant vacated on 28th or 30th day

of August 2014: Exhibit A3 tendered by Plaintiff referred to

Claim 1 as arrears of rent. There is no evidence before me

to suggest that the said tenancy of one year was determined

by any notice whatsoever. A one year tenancy unlike a

tenancy for a year certain does not expire. It is determined

by statutory notices. A claim for mesne profit is not the

same as a claim for arrears of rent which is liquidated

damages. It has to be established by the Claimant.

16

See GABARI VS. ILORI (2002) 14 NWLR (PT.786) 78.

In the circumstance of this case, it is my humble view and I

so hold that the Plaintiff failed to prove its entitlement to

mesne profit. The Plaintiff Claims N4,198,530.20K for

breach of the Defendant’s covenant to restore the property

to a tenantable state which includes the cost of replacing

four chandeliers removed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff

also claims N5 Million for breach of Defendant’s covenant

not to sublet the premises without the landlords written

consent and N254,000.00 being outstanding charges for

consumption of water incurred by the Defendant.

For a claim in the nature of special damages to succeed, it

must be proved strictly, the Court is not entitled to make its

own estimate on such claims. They denote those pecuniary

losses which have crystallized in terms of cash and value

before trial.

See GONZEE NIG. LTD. VS. NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (PT.

943)) P.634.

ODUMOSU VS. ACB LTD (1973) 11 SC. P.55.

The law is that special damages must not only be specifically

pleaded with relevant particulars but must be strictly proved

with credible evidence. Without such proof no special

damages, though pleaded can be awarded.

17

See UNIPETROL NIG. PLC. VS. ADIREJE (W.A. LTD) (2005)

14 NWLR PT.946 P. 620.

I have perused the Statement of Claim particularly

paragraph 14 wherein the Plaintiff pleaded and

particularized the special damages allegedly incurred.

In Proof, the Plaintiff’s only witness tendered exhibit A1

which is Plaintiff’s request for consent to make alteration

with a promise to restore the demised premises to its

original state. Exhibit A2 is the consent of the Plaintiff

through its solicitor with a directive to restore the premises

to its state at the expiration of tenancy. Exhibit A4 is a

letter from TONEES CONSULT LTD dated 03/09/14 while

Exhibit A5 is a bill by Tonees Consult Ltd dated 30/09/14.

There is no doubt that there is an agreement to alter and

restore the premises to its original state at the expiration of

the tenancy. There is no evidence that the Defendant did

same at the expiration of its tenancy. She confirmed under

cross-examination that she did not put the property in its

original state because she was not allowed. However, the

burden is on the Plaintiff to prove strictly that the Plaintiff

incurred the said expenses as a result of the said breach.

The Exhibits A4 and A5 tendered in proof of the above were

both made on 30/09/14. Both Exhibits are bills for

renovation. The documents were tendered by Plaintiff’s

witness who described himself as a Professional

Photographer and Administrative Manager of the Plaintiff.

He stated under Cross-examination that Tonees Consult the

author of Exhibit A4 and A5 is a Licensed Building Firm

18

which he contracted to evaluate the damage and renovation

work. That they are signed by the Principal Architect. That

the Company is an expert in Architectural Design. That he

cannot defend Exhibits A4 and A5 because he is not an

expert. It is trite law that the proper person through whom

a document is tendered is the maker of the document. If a

person who is not a maker of the document tenders same,

the Court ought not (should not) attach any probative value

to such document because the person tendering same not

been the maker cannot answer questions arising from any

cross-examination.

See LAMBERT VS. NIGERIAN NAVY (2006) 7 NWLR

(PT.980) 525.

Exhibits A4 and A5 were admitted in evidence without

objection. The Plaintiff’s witness confirmed that he cannot

defend the said Exhibits because he is not an expert. In the

circumstance although the documents were admitted, I shall

not put any probative value on them. There is no evidence

that the said bill or expenses were incurred by the Plaintiff.

They are therefore futuristic. The bottom line therefore is

that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove the special

damages claimed with credible evidence, consequently Claim

B fails. Claim D is for consumption of water incurred by the

Plaintiff. No evidence of water bill was tendered. There is no

evidence whether the water consumed is from the Water

Board or Borehole. This head of claim is not also strictly

proved.

19

On claim C which is N5 Million for breach of covenant not to

sublet, it is my view that mere assertion that the Defendant

sublet the said premises is not enough. The Plaintiff must

prove same with credible evidence. The Defendant was in

the premises for about three years. There is no letter

evidencing complaint of subletting. The evidence is that the

Defendant used the premises for the business of hair

dressing, spa restaurant and as a beauty parlor. There is no

evidence of the names of the people the premises was sublet

to. The evidence elicited from the Plaintiff’s witness under

cross examination is that the Manager of the Defendant

surrendered the key of the property to him. In the

circumstance, Claim C is not also proved.

In view of the failure of Claim A, B, C and D, Claim E cannot

stand on its own. For the totality of reasons given the

Plaintiff’s Claim fails and it is dismissed. The Defendant

counterclaimed as reproduced at the beginning of this

Judgment, the Defendant pleaded and particularized the

items in paragraph 11 of the counter claim. The

Defendant’s witness gave evidence of its items which it was

refused access to pick when it was packing out of the

premises. It is contained in Paragraph 18 of the Oath. The

value of the six items is N3,790,600. The Defendant’s

witness also tendered Exhibit B – B3 which are Federal

Capital Territory Water Board Consumer Bill evidencing the

Meter No, Type, Size, Condition and installation, Exhibit D

dated 29/06/11 for 4 doors Exhibit D1 for receipt for

interlocks, sand stone dust and labour Exhibit D2 dated

12/08/11 for generator. Exhibit D3 payment for damaged

AMR and Exhibit D4 and D5.

20

The evidence is that Defendant’s witness was not there when

her workers finally moved out. That the doors she claims

were behind the security post. That the Defendant’s

Witness was not allowed to pick her properties as she was

blocked by the Plaintiff’s thugs. In the circumstance, the

properties are in the custody of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s

evidence is that he has a lien on the said properties since

the Defendant refused and or failed to pay the alleged mesne

profit.

I agree with Defendant’s Counsel that the refusal of the

Plaintiff to allow the Defendant pack her properties is self

help. There are proper ways of recovering possession and

mesne Profit. A tenant who has defaulted in the payment of

rent or mesne profit still has to be served with necessary

summons for the recovery of same.

See OSSAI VS. WAKWA (2006) 4 NWLR (PT. 909) 208 SC.

The law does not protect a landlord who resorts to self help

in recovering his rent or mesne profit, thus where a landlord

unilaterally as in this case lay a claim of a lien on a tenants

properties, he shall suffer the consequences.

See NATIONAL SALT CO. OF NIG. LTD VS. INNIS –

PALMER (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 218) P. 422

Self help has no place in a civilized world as it is clearly

against the rule of law in a democracy. It is improper for

this Court to give approval or lead credence to an act or

conduct of self help. In the circumstance counterclaim

succeeds. The evidence is that the Defendant’s properties

21

are in the premises, there is no evidence that they are

damaged therefore Counter Claim (b) cannot be granted. I

shall however make a consequential order.

Judgment is entered in favour of the

Defendant/Counterclaimant against the Plaintiff as follows:

1. It is declared that the lien on the Defendant’s property

as averred in paragraphs 10 and 15 of the Statement of

Claim is illegal, null and void.

2. The Plaintiff is hereby ordered to surrender all the

properties under custody as contained in paragraph 18

of the counterclaim forthwith.

HON. JUSTICE U. P. KEKEMEKE (HOH. JUDGE) 14/06/16