JUSTICES of the Supreme Court of Nig eria (SCN) have thrown their weight behind a medical doctor, Michael Emuakpor Abeke, who until recently had been involved in a battle of supremacy with a legal practitioner, one Messrs A.A. Odunsi and Skyline 

Hotel Limited, over a property, located at NO.4, Oyewunmi Close, Surulere, Lagos Scate. 

Presided over by MUhammad Muntaka- Coomassie, tneir lordships punctured the arguments of the lawyer, while upholding the medical doctor' position. It took more than two decades to get the matter totally resolved. The apex's court panel that decided the case also included Nwali Ngwuta, Olukayode Ariwoola, who read the lead judgment. Others are Clara Ogunbiyi and Stanley Alagoa. 

Abeke, the appellant, was said to have purchased the property from the estate of Michael Abiodun Joseph at N1.1m. Consequent upon the purchase, the respondents, Odunsi and Skyline, who were tenants on the property, challenged the appellant's authority and ownership on the ground that the estate of Michael Abiodun Joseph ought to have given them the first option to purchase the property. 

In a judgment delivered in suit No. LD/3626/93, the High Court of Lagos State declared the appellant the owner of the property and therefore entitled to recover possession from the respondents upon service on them of the relevant statutory notices. Pursuant to the judgment, the appellant instituted another action against the respondents also at the High Court of Lagos State claiming an order of possession of the property and an order directing the respondents to pay the sum of N600,000 as mesne profit on the property. Specifically, the appellant sought for an order of possession of rhe disputed property. He also prayed for an order directing the defendants to pay the sum of N600, 000.00 as mesne profits on the said property from the 1st of April, 1992 to the 1st of April, 1996 at the rate of N150, 000.00 per annum and thereafter at the said prorata up to and after the judgment of this court until vacant possession is granted. 

In their statement of defence, the respondents admitted that they had not paid any rent to the appellant because there was a 

dispute as to the ownership of the property. The first respondent also admitted that he had no title documents to the said 

property. 

At the trial, the first respondent stated he was not a tenant in the property in dispute but owner of the said property, despite the earlier judgment of the Lagos High Court, which declared the appellant the rightful owner. However, he admitted the fact that he had no title documents to the property. 

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the appellant by granting him possession of the property and mesne profits until possession was given to the appellant. 

Drawing from the denial of the appellant's title to, or ownership of the said property, the trial Judge ordered that "Possession of N. 4 Oyewunmi Close Surulere, Lagos is hereby granted to the plaintiff' and that "the defendants shall pay to the plaintiff mesne profit at the rate of NSO,OOO per annum from April 4 1994 to 

April 4 1996 and thereafter at the rate prorate up to or ownership of the said property." 

Aggrieved, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, where they wanted the court to resolve the followings: 

whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties? whether the tenancy had been validly terminated? 

whether an order for mesne profit is justifiable in the circustances? 

Deciding the matter, the applellant court dismissed the appellant's claims and allowed the appeal.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the apex's court, the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the appeal on the ground that the appellant could not be heard on his appeal as he was in contempt of an order of the Court of Appeal.

Arguing their position, the respondents submitted that the appellant being in unrepentant contempt of the order of court, that is, the Court of Appeal order of 26th January 2000, ought not to be heard while he remains in contempt of an order of court, as a contemnor cannot be allowed to disregard the court in one breth and turn around to taunt the court be seeking relief from the court in another breath.

They contended further that the part of the judgment of the Court of Appleal directing them to pay a balance of N300,000 no longer applies since they won the appeal and the lower court's judgment was overturned.

In his response, rhe appellant denied being a contemnor in contempt of rubbling him of the constitutional right of appeal to thesupreme Court and beheard on appeal.

According to the Olukayode Ariwoola, the appellant was not a contemnor, and consequently the objection by the respondents was refused. 

On the main appel, the claimed by the respondents that they were not given adequate notices was rejected in favour of the appellant. "There is no doubt that the respondent had denied being tenants to the appellant on the property in question. Indeed, as earlier stated, they claim to be owners. By this denial, the respondents robbed themselves of entitlement to statutory notices required to be served on a tenant.

"The court below was therefore with greatest respect, in error to have that the respondents did not deny the title of the appellant as held by the trial court. Accordingly, issues 1 ans2 argued together are hearby resolved against the respondents but in favour of appellant."

But the court rejected prayer for mesne profit, as their lordships held that they were liable to pay mesne profits, adding that: "what the appellant is entitled to, at best, is damages for the use and occupation of the property, which will ordinarily be the rent being paid to the previous owners up to the time the appellant purchased the said property and until possession of same is finally delivered by the respondents. This issue on mesne profits is resolved against the appellant but in favour of the respondents. 

The decision of the court below, which set aside in totality the judgment of the trial court, which granted possession to the 

appellant is set aside while the part of the decision of the court below on mesne profit is affirmed. In the final analysis, this appeal succeeds in part and it is so accordingly allowed. There shall be costs of N100,000 to the appellant against the respondent," the Supreme Court held. 

 

By Emmanuel Badejo