CaseLaw
Oroyinyin V. Raman (1997) CLR 3(d) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The appellants and the respondent entered into a contract as evidence by an agreement dated 14 December, 1981 (Exhibit A) superseded by another agreement dated 7 January, 1986. It was a contractor financed agreement. By that agreement, the respondent agreed to demolish the existing building on the said premises at No 42 Docemo Street, Lagos an erect in its place at her expense a modern building of four floors (including the ground floor) at a cost of not less than N80,000.00
The respondent was to give the appellants six shops on the ground floor rent free while the respondent shall take what remains on the ground floor and the entire first second and third floors for a term of 15 years commencing from January 1, 1982 in repayment of the money expended by the respondent to erect the said building. In addition the respondent was to pay the township rates, taxes and assessments on the said building during the term of 15 years; to pay the electric bills for the building apart from the bills for the six shops to be given to the appellants to allow the appellants access at all reasonable hours in the day time to the said building to inspect the same; not to assign or underlet any part of the first second and third floors beyond the term granted (i.e the 15 years) without the written consent of the appellants and to surrender to the appellants the entire four floors of the house in good and tenantable condition and repair at the expiration of the term i.e. on 31 December, 1996.
The respondent erected the ground floor as well as the first and second floors and made six shops on the ground floor available to the appellants which they accordingly occupied out of the twenty one shops she built. She occupied the remaining fifteen shops and the first and second floors. It appears work started on the building in June, 1982 and that by the end of that year the said three floors had been completed except the third floor. It will be recalled that the second agreement (exhibit D) which supersede the first one (exhibit A) made on 14 December, 1981 was executed on 7 January, 1986 although the commencement date on both was January 1, 1982. The only difference was that the 10 years term stated in exhibit A Was now made 15 years in exhibit D.
By 12 March, 1986 the appellants by letter requested the respondent to comply with the agreement by building the third floor. The respondent did not and on 15
October, 1986 the appellants took out a writ of summons for the reliefs claimed. Although the appellants complained of the poor structure and quality of the building and led evidence through one M. B. Animashawun who described himself as a builder and a construction surveyor though admitting he was not a quantity surveyor nor a structural engineer the learned trial judge held that his evidence lacked probative value and discountenanced it. There is no appeal against that. The learned trial judge after observing that the action was founded on breach of contract as regards failure to build the third floor, made two relevant findings; (1) that since the contract was silent on the completion date, what can be implied in performance within a reasonable time, but that since non completion of the third floor had, at the time of the action caused no loss to the appellants but to the respondent herself the appellants had no cause of action for the reliefs sought; (b) that the cause of action for damages for breach of contract to build the third floor would arise when the respondent would hand over the building on 31st December, 1996 to the appellants without that third floor.
The appellants were dissatisfied and appealed to the court of Appeal.
Issues
Whether the trial court was right in holding that the respondent had not...