Alhaji Jimoh Yusuf & Ors V. Governor of Lagos State & Ors (1994)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
SULU-GAMBARI, J.C.A.
Learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out that the applicants are tenants of the respondents and that their tenancies are still continuing, the fact that the buildings have been demolished notwithstanding. He referred us to page 43 of the bundle of documents attached to the application – the counter-affidavit sworn to by one Felix Adeoye paragraph 8 of it which admitted that the plaintiffs/applicants are tenants. I quote:-
“8. That all the traders in the area including the plaintiffs/applicants are tenants of the Urban Renewal Board which is the appropriate authority with responsibility for the scheme.”
In the Ruling, the learned trial judge emphasised that there was no dispute as to the existence of the legal right of the plaintiffs since the respondents admitted that they are tenants.
Even in the counter-affidavit filed on 12/5/94 by the respondents in this court sworn to by the same Felix Adeoye, it was deposed to in paragraph 20 thereof that the speedy development of the area in dispute was intended to benefit the applicants.
All these averments go to confirm the averment in paragraph 10 of the application which says thus:-
“That the appellants/applicants are bona fide tenants of the respondents whose tenancies are still subsisting and which fact the respondents admitted in their counter-affidavit and also orally by their counsel.”
Before us, learned counsel for the Respondents made heavy weather about the fact (which he is now canvassing) that since the shops have been demolished, the applicants cannot now claim to be tenants as their tenancies had terminated with the demolition of the shops. These facts are not supported by any averment in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents.
Since the learned trial judge had held that the applicants have existing legal rights and this fact has not been sufficiently controverted, and indeed had been I reinforced by the averments in the two counter-affidavits already referred to above, I will hold that the applicants are entitled to the prayer asked in their relief 4 of this application.
For the avoidance of doubt, prayer 1 for departure from the Rules of this Court had been granted. Prayer two for accelerated hearing of the appeal is granted and the appeal fixed for 11/5/95. Prayers 3 and 5 having been withdrawn by the applicants are hereby struck out. Prayer 4 is granted as prayed. Costs of N1,000.00 to the applicants.
Other Citations: (1994)LCN/0175(CA)
