TUFU AKUBUEZE CHINEKWE & ORS VS CHIEF M. OGO IBEZIAKO - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

TUFU AKUBUEZE CHINEKWE & ORS VS CHIEF M. OGO IBEZIAKO

K.R. RAMANCHANDANI VS BASSEY EKPENYONG
August 8, 2025
ALBERT ADEOYE VS MADAM IBIDUN ABIBATU JINADU
August 8, 2025
K.R. RAMANCHANDANI VS BASSEY EKPENYONG
August 8, 2025
ALBERT ADEOYE VS MADAM IBIDUN ABIBATU JINADU
August 8, 2025
Show all

TUFU AKUBUEZE CHINEKWE & ORS VS CHIEF M. OGO IBEZIAKO

Legalpedia Citation: (1975) Legalpedia (SC) 16121

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Thu May 1, 1975

Suit Number: SC. 337/1974

CORAM


KUDIRAT M. O. KEKERE-EKUN    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


TUFU AKUBUEZE CHINEKWE & ORS APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

This was an appeal against the judgment of the High Court in which the plaintiff was granted a declaration of title and interest in a piece of land and in the storey building as well as a demolition order in respect of the buildings, structure and stores of the defendants on the land in question. The defendant, not satisfied with the decision of the High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal and further to the Supreme Court.


HELD


The decision of the trial court was wrongly reached and the orders were set aside


ISSUES


Whether the Trial Court was right having considered and relied on exhibit C in his judgement


RATIONES DECIDENDI


BREACH OF COVENANT


where any rent had been paid by the tenant, the landlord would be estopped from denying the existence of a tenancy from year to year upon such of the terms of the agreement as were applicable to such a tenancy. It was specifically held further that specific performance of such an agreement for a lease will not be granted where the tenant has committed a breach of one of the covenants contained in the agreement which was signed by both parties- Per Taslim O. Elias, JSC


TENANCY AT SURVEILLANCE


where a party had without any formal lease having been executed, entered into possession of premises in the expectation that a formal lease would be duly executed and, having so entered, had occupied and enjoyed the premises beneficially, then, he must, if the matter was broken off before any lease was in fact executed, pay for such occupation and he was liable in an action for use and occupation to pay such a sum as the court might deem reasonable in the circumstances.-Per Taslim O. Elias, JSC


CASES CITED


Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch. D. 9

Williams v. Brisco (1882) 22 Ch. D. 441

Ariff v. Bai Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur (1931) 47 TLR 238

Esugbayi Oloto v. Dauda & Ors. 1 NLR 57

Coatsworth v. Johnson (1986-1890) All ER Reprint


STATUTES REFERRED TO



CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.