UBA Logo
February 2, 2018
An Igbosere High Court in Lagos on Friday asked parties in a N36.8 million suit filed by a Lagos businessman, Alhaji Azeez Ayomumoye, against the United Bank for Africa (UBA) to file addresses to clear grey areas discovered in their written addresses.
Ayomumoye had filed the suit for a breach of property lease agreement against UBA.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Okikiola Ighile had on Nov. 6, 2017 adjourned until Jan. 17 to deliver judgment on the case.
However, the court did not sit on Jan. 17 and the judgment was again reserved until Feb. 2.
When the case was called on Friday, Justice Ighile told the parties that the judgment was ready but that there were some discrepancies in the two lease agreement tendered in court.
“After the addresses by the parties, I went into the facts of the case and found out that the parties did not address the court on a document in the file.
“I stumbled on one authority that is why I need clarification on the documents because I can see that both documents are lease agreements.
“Court is taking cognizance of all the terms of the lease agreement,” she said.
The judge, however, asked counsel to both parties if they were ready to address the court on the issue.
The counsel, who represented the claimant, Mr Rotimi Taiwo and the counsel to the defendant, Mr Collins Ogbonna, asked for a date to enable them file their addresses on the issue raised.
Ighile then adjourned the case until Feb. 23 for the addresses.
NAN also reports that Ayomumoye had claimed that a deed of sub-lease of Oct. 1, 2006 between him and UBA was breached by the bank on his building situated at Plot 15, Aina Layout at Dopemu on Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway.
Contrary to the deed of sub-lease, he said the bank “wholly demolished the property and erected a new structure in its place’’ without his consent and approval.
The claimant also stated that upon discovery of the agreement breach, he protested in writing severally to the bank, requesting for compensation but was ignored by the defendants.
Rather, he said the bank fraudulently registered some new documents on the property which, according to him, were fundamentally different from what was executed by both parties in 2006.
In its earlier statement of defence filed by its counsel, Mr O.U. Inneh on Sept. 1, 2009, the bank denied all the allegations, stating that “there were several collateral agreements between the two parties that the leased property would be demolished and re-built to meet the `corporate style structure’ of the defendants”.
In his final written address, Mr Bolaji Ramos submitted that the deed of sub-lease had already been placed before the court, stressing that the bank violated the law and breached the sub-lease agreement by demolishing his property without a written consent and approval of the claimant.
Ramos contended that it was a settled position of the law that no tenant can demolish and re-build a rented property without the consent and approval of the landlord.
He recalled that the first written objection of the claimant was submitted to the bank in January 2007, stressing that he could not have expressly protested the bank’s actions if he had consented and approved of the actions.
Submitting his final written address, the defence counsel, Mr Ogbonna, urged the court to dismiss the claims of the plaintiff, describing it as “vexatious, irritating and an abuse of judicial process having consented to the property demolition.”
He claimed that the landlord was aware of the demolition and reconstruction plans of the bank after the lease of the property which, he added, was originally not designed for banking operations.
NAN reports that the landlord is claiming N36. 8 million as cost of demolition of present structure and erecting thereon the original structure which was demolished by the bank without the consent or authorization of the owner/claimant.
In the alternative, the businessman is demanding N24 million being cost of restructuring the present building to a multi-purpose building to the “corporate style” of the bank.
