Tenant sues landlord N10m for harassment

A Lagos State High Court in Ikeja has ordered that peace be maintained between a travels and tourism firm, Peacock Travels and Tours Limited and its landlord, Jude Ekwenife.

Peacock had dragged its landlord, Ekwenife, before Justice Iyabode Akinkugbe claiming N10m over alleged harassment and damages of its properties.

But Akinkugbe, last week Thursday, while adjourning further hearing in the matter till May 19, 2015, ordered the counsel for both parties to advise their clients not to take any action that would amount to treating the court with contempt.

Sued alongside Ekwenife was Mrs. Yinka Igandan, claimed to be the former landlady to Peacock before she sold the property and transferred ownership to Ekwenife.

But according to the applicant, Ekwenife, after purchasing the property at No. 136, Awolowo Way, Ikeja, Lagos, had allegedly refused to recognise Peacock as his tenant and had therefore ordered the firm to pack out even while its annual rent was still subsisting.

The firm alleged that in a bid to forcefully eject it, the first defendant caused a tipper load of gravel to be offloaded right at its office entrance, thus humiliating the firm before its clients and making difficult its daily business conduct.

The applicant said its workers had been working under the fear of being picked up by policemen from the Terrorism and Heinous Crime Unit because Ekwenife had gone to lodge a complaint against them and had allegedly misrepresented facts of the dispute.

Apart from N10m damages, Peacock is praying the court to restrain Ekwenife from ejecting it forcefully.

The firm is seeking a declaration that there is a tenant-landlord agreement between it and Ekwenife.

But Ekwenife has urged the court to decline jurisdiction over the matter and to declare that the applicant had no locus standi to institute the action.

In a counter-affidavit deposed to by himself, Ekwenife denied being the purchaser of the property, and insisted that Chief Segun Phillips rather than Peacock was the recognised tenant on the property.

The first defendant further maintained that contrary to the applicant’s claim, the 2nd defendant was not the predecessor-in-title or vendor of the properties.