A pharmacist named Kelechi Osuji has been forced to leave his home at Same Global Estate in Lokogoma District by an Abuja High Court due to the fact that hasn’t paid his rent since 2016.
Mr. Osuji sued Mr. O. Ifedapo, his landlord, and Mr. Tajudeen Oyerinde, the caretaker, under suit number FHC/HC/BW/CV/721/2016., requesting ten million naira in damages.
Among other things, he said they served him a one-month leave notice, harassed him, and embarrassed him.
Mr. Osuji maintained that his landlord ought to have given him a six-month notice period rather than a one-month notice period.
He noted that the tenancy agreement was no longer enforceable since it had expired in October 2015.
In a countersuit, the landlord charged Osuji with breaking the terms of their lease.
He requested N75,000.00 in overdue rent per month from November 1, 2015, to November 1, 2016, totaling 900,000 naira.
An order from the court directed the plaintiff/defendant to counterclaim to vacate and give up possession of the let premises, which are Flat 3, Block C20, Same Global Estate, Lokogoma District, Abuja, immediately.
Judge K.N. Ogbonnaya of the court stated in his judgement dated October 6, 2023, which the correspondent was able to view, that the plaintiff had not established and proven his case before the court.
Based on the material that was presented to the court, the judge determined that the tenant’s statements were contradictory and inconsistent.
it stated; Firstly, it is without dispute that the plaintiff and the first defendant had a one-year tenancy arrangement that terminated on October 31, 2015. It was expected of the plaintiff to leave the property and relinquish possession. He waited. The precise amount to be paid each month may be found by dividing the fixed tenancy amount by twelve. Throughout the first two months, the plaintiff overstayed.
“Mesne Profit begins counting once a tenant has held over the premises after the expiration of Tenancy—that is the Law, the Rule, and the decision made in numerous cases.”Since the additional stay in this instance is not a yearlong tenancy, it was not designated as such. Thus, the subject of the six-month notice period is off the table. Additionally, even if the plaintiff’s stay was for a year, his claim that he did not get the minimum six months’ notice is misplaced since he is not a yearly tenant in and of himself. It lacks a definition. No written or formal agreement existed between the parties. The existence of any such arrangement was not shown by the plaintiff.
He had no intention of extending his stay and was aware that it would expire on December 31, 2015, according to the judge.
The judge pointed out that Osuji stayed for an additional two months in accordance with an agreement after the first one-year tenancy concluded in October 2015.
The plaintiff “knew that he would leave by December 31, 2023,” the judge said, therefore he has no right to demand that the landlord provide him six months’ notice. The Agreement was based on a new and separate charge because it was not a part of the terminated Tenancy. The previous tenancy served as the sole yardstick and measuring stick in the absence of a new one.
The court granted three of the landlord’s requested reliefs, ruling that “the Defendants/Counter-Claimants have been able to defend this case and have also been able to prove their counter-claim and are entitled to the reliefs sought in their counter-claim in this Suit.”
