An Igbosere High Court in Lagos on Friday fixed Feb. 26 for adoption of further written addresses in a N36.8 million suit slammed against the United Bank for Africa (UBA) led by a Lagos businessman, Alhaji Azeez Ayomumoye.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Bola Okikiolu-Ighile had on Feb. 2 asked both parties to file further addresses to clear grey areas discovered in their written addresses in the breach of property lease agreement case.

The judge had asked for clarifications on grey areas in the parties addresses to enable her deliver a sound judgment which she had scheduled for Feb. 2 .

She, however, fixed Feb. 23 (today) for hearing on the further addresses.

The counsel are Mr Rotimi Taiwo for the claimant (the landlord) and Mr Collins Ogbonna for the defendant (UBA).

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 Lay Out 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 compensation but was“ ignored” by the defendants.

Rather, he claimed that 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 own 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 the reconstruction plans of the bank after the lease of the property which, he added, was originally not designed for banking operations.

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 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.