FOR demolishing a three-storey building under a valid leasehold arrangement between the owners and a developer, a Lagos High Court has been tasked to reverse its order, which directed that the disputed property be brought down.The building is situate at No 53 Iga Idungaran Street, Isale-Eko, Lagos Island, within the suburb of Oba of Lagos, HRM Rilwan Akiolu's palace.In a motion on notice before Justice Sybil Nwaka of Igbosere Judicial Division, the owner of the property, Alhaji Salami Lawal, the applicant is seeking an order of the court to set aside its ruling allegedly without due process of law. He is also asking the court for an order of retrial of the suit. The motion has been slated for mention February 13, 2012.Defendants in the suit are Mr. Amos Ewetuga and Mrs. Florence Oshode for themselves and on behalf of the children of late Pa Joseph Ewetuga, Mrs. Arinola Adekoya and Madam Ashabi Sosanya for themselves and on behalf of the children of Late Madam Ayinke Lewis, the Lagos State Physical Planning and Development Authority (fifth defendant), Mr. Babatunde Sosanya and Mrs. Jimoke Sarumi.The controversial property was constructed on plots of land leased from the representatives of the families of late Pa Joseph Ewetuga and Late Madam Ayinke Lewis both of who died intestate.The first to fourth defendants, in connivance with the fifth defendant were alleged to have obtained the ruling surreptitiously with which the property belonging to the claimant was demolished when there was a substantive leasehold on the building.The claimant insisted that the first and second defendants on one part and the third and fourth defendants on the other extended his leasehold on the property for a period of seven and ten years respectively commencing from April 1, 2012 to March 30, 2019 and April 1, 2012 to March 30, 2022 but the claimants later reneged on the agreement and sought to give the property to another developer.According to the claimant, the ruling of the court aided the case of the defendants, who had wished to have his building demolished in order not to honor the lease agreements between them, for the purposes of erecting another building on the land by an estate developer who has leased the land from them and allegedly paid so much to mastermind the miscarriage of justice against him.The claimant had first leased the land from the first to fourth defendants in 1987 and erected his building on it. He later renewed the leasehold in 2005 and 2008 respectively and was yet to commence the last lease when trouble started with the leasers wanting to quit him.Giving the grounds of the application, the claimant said the ruling was delivered without due process and that it is an infringement of his rights to fair hearing. He stated that an alleged pre-trial conference fixed by the court suo moto, when the parties have not concluded pleadings was a violation of due process of law.Messrs Chimezie Peter, counsel to the applicant, argued that the court did not hear the evidence of the parties during examination-in-chief and cross-examination of parties to the suit by their counsel before the said ruling, adding that the order for demolition of his client's property without determination of competing legal interests contravened the claimant's right to fair hearing, right to acquire and own property guaranteed by the constitution of Nigeria.The claimant therefore claimed against the defendants jointly or severally, the sum of N100 Million for the agony, psychological trauma and loss of income created against him by the demolition.Lawal swore that the ruling amounted to doing the bidding of the defendants in the suit.In a letter dated September 28, 2011 written to the general manager, Lagos State Physical Planning and Development Authority by his counsel on his behalf, Lawal contends that the controversial ruling did not authorize the first, fourth, sixth and seventh defendants, their agents, privies, personal representatives and assigns to take possession of the property, neither did the ruling authorize them to build on the contested land and regretted that the authority in spite of all these went ahead to grant a building plan No. Eko/11/Do/01765 to the defendants, adding that it was a great mischief, which led to the demolition of his building worth N100 million.In its statement of defence, the fifth defendant through its principal state counsel, Mr. S.O Kasali insisted that the demolished building was susceptible to collapse due to lack of maintenance.According to Kasali, the report of its in-house engineers who inspected the building revealed that there were several cracks on the beans and columns with exposure of reinforcement and that the building was instable and was in danger of imminent collapse due to uneven settlement arising from foundation failure.Also, in its defence and counter-claim, the first to fourth defendants said since the execution of the lease agreement in 1987, they have not disturbed the claimant in taking possession of the property except in 2009 when they got a report from one of the occupants that the building was vibrating and had tilted to one side and that the house may suddenly collapse.According to them, frantic efforts were made to contact the claimant to no avail which necessitated their visiting the building and ascertained that the reinforcement on the slab on the decking were exposed because the concrete covering it had pealed off. They added that the beam and columns that support the structure on the building were exposed to weather and had rusted.The third defendant, Mrs Adekoya said since after the first deed of lease was executed in 1987, she has not known anything about the disputed property and therefore not concerned with the property and the current dispute.The trial judge in her ruling had stated: 'The court has given parties the opportunity to amicably settle the matter but they have failed and refused to abide by the reconciliatory order of this court. This court cannot sit and watch litigants hold a community and its citizens to ransom. The picture of building that is before me reveals it to have deteriorated, stressed and dangerous to all. It poses danger to the live of occupants of the structure and adjoining buildings.
Click here to read full news..
