CaseLaw
Shettimari V. Nwokoye (1991) CLR 12(a) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The appellant, under a written agreement, leased his house to the respondent for a period of seven years during which it was to be used by the respondent as a hotel. The written agreement took effect from 1st October, 1982. The respondent was to pay the sum of N20, 000.00 for the first two years, N13,000.00 out of it to be paid and was, in fact, paid on the execution of the Agreement and the balance of N7,000.00 was to paid after the respondent had stayed on the premises for a period of one and a half years. Thereafter, rent was to be paid at the rate of N1,000 per annum, subject to review from time to time.
The Agreement, Exhibit “A” contained a provision permitting the landlord (the appellant), upon failure of the tenant (the respondent) to pay rent or breach of a covenant, to re-enter the premises. Failure to pay rent or a breach of any covenant by the tenant also had the effect of terminating the lease. In March, 1984, the appellant demanded the payment of the balance of N7,000 because, in his view, the respondent had stayed on the premise for the period of one and half years by March ,1984. The respondent refuse to pay the balance of N7,000.00 because, in his view, the N7,000 was payable in June, 1984 and not in March,1984.Consequently, the appellant re-entered the premises. As a result, the respondent brought an action for damages trespass and for trespass and for other reliefs in the High Court, Maidugujri Division of Borno State.
It was held that the balance of N7,000 out of the rent of N20,000 was payable in June, 1984, as contended by the respondent and not in March, 1984 thereby making the re-entry of the appellant in the premises unjustifiable and therefore constituted trespass for which the appellant was the liable to pay damages to the respondent. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge dismissed the appellant’s counter-claim after holding the view it was not proved.
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding to the respondent...