MRS DUPE BADMUS v MR. ABIMBOLA KING

CORAM

.

.

.

.

PARTIES

MRS DUPE BADMUS   APPELLANTS

MR. ABIMBOLA KING RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent who is the owner of the property known as No. 2, Ibiyinka Olorunnimbe Close, Victoria Island Lagos subleased the property to the Defendant/Appellant for a term of two-years only and which tenancy was determined by effluxion of time on 31st day of October 2002. The sublease relationship between the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendant/Appellant was governed by a sublease agreement dated the 9th day of October 2000. The Defendant/Appellant did not comply with the condition for creating a fresh tenancy, rather the Defendant/Appellant wrote a letter to Plaintiff/Respondent that she would yield up possession of the demised premises on or before 31st of December 2003 and that her stay in the premises during the said period would be rent free. The Plaintiff/Respondent rejected the proposal and instituted an action in Lagos State High Court for the recovery of the property which was occupied by the Defendant/Appellant, mesne profit at the rate of =N=50,000 per month from 1st day of November, 2002 until possession is given up and cost of the suit. The Defendant/Appellant contended that she was a yearly tenant and not a fixed tenant; and that as such her tenancy cannot be determined by effluxion of time, rather by six months notice to quit which the Respondent did not give her. The trial court granted the Plaintiff/Respondent claims but awarded N15, 000.00 (Fifteen Thousand Naira) only as cost of the suit. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court she appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the judgment delivered outside the period stipulated in section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 is automatically a nullity?

2. Whether the tenancy/sublease between the parties was a fixed or periodic tenancy?

3. Whether in law the admitting of Exhibits E. F. and G by the learned Justice which were not pleaded by any of the parties to the Suit was right?

4. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right for being selective as to what to record during the testimony of the only defence witness who was speaking in Yoruba language through an interpreter?

5. Whether the learned trial judge came to the right conclusion in holding that the respondent is entitled to possession of the property in dispute?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT BY A COURT – WHETHER A JUDGMENT CAN BE TREATED AS A NULLITY FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER JUDGMENT AS PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION – SECTION 294 (1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED

Section 294 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides:
“Every court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof.
(5) The decision of a court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section unless the court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA JCA

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHETHER DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED

“The present legal position is that documents need not be specifically pleaded so long as the relevant facts relating to the document are pleaded. See Thanni v. Saibu (1977) 2 SC 89 at page 116; Amadi v. Olumati (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 410) 739; Allied Bank (Nig.) Ltd v. Akubueze (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 374”.PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHERE FACTS RELATING TO A DOCUMENT ARE PLEADED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO RENDER THE DOCUMENT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE

“The courts have moved away from the requirement of specifically pleading a document to render it admissible in evidence. If facts relating to the document are duly pleaded, that is sufficient to render the document admissible in evidence. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

ORAL EVIDENCE – WHETHER ORAL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE TO VARY, CONTRADICT, ALTER OR ADD TO A WRITTEN DOCUMENT

“The law is trite and it is provided in Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act that oral evidence is not admissible to vary, contradict, alter or add to a written document. Consequently, where parties have embodied the terms of their agreement in a written document, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to vary, alter or contradict its terms. See Idufueko v. Pfizer Products Ltd &Anor. (2014) LPELR-22999(SC): Udogwu v. Oki (1990) NWLR (Pt.153) 721 (® 736.Afribank (Nig.) Plc V. ALADE (2000) 13 NWLR (PT685) 591 @602 F-G: KOIKI V.MAGNUSSON (1999) 8 NWLR (PT615) 492 (3)514 F.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

FIXED TENANCY – WHEN DOES FIXED TENANCY COME TO AN END?

“A fixed tenancy comes to an end automatically on the expiration of its tenure”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The principle governing the formulation of issues for determination is that a number of grounds could where appropriate be formulated into a single congruous issue. It is undesirable to split the issue in a ground of appeal. There should not be more issues than the grounds of appeal. See Labiyi v. Anretiola (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 139: Gwar v. Adole (2003) FMLR (Pt. 176) 747 (9) 760: A.C.B. Plc v. Odukwe (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 276) 804: Drexel Energy & Natural Resources Ltd v. Trans International Bank Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388. PER C. E. IYIZOBA JCA

DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT BY A COURT -WHETHER FAILURE OF COURT TO DELIVER JUDGMENT WITHIN 90 DAYS RENDERS THE JUDGMENT A NULLITY

“Failure to deliver judgment within 90 days does not automatically render the judgment a nullity. The complainant must show and the appellate court must be satisfied that the failure resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

2. Evidence Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT