A law firm, Rahael Adakole & Co (Lighthouse Chamber), on Tuesday took possession of the Abuja Headquarters office of TSTV (Telcom Satellite Ltd. Television).
Owned by West African Business Platform Ltd., the claimant, the property was retrieved in respect to the judgment by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court in November 2019.
The lawsuit followed the inability of TSTV to pay the tenancy agreement entered on May 1, 2017.
The office is located at Plot 1191, Jahi District, off Gilmore Construction Company, FCT.
FCT High Court’s Execution Unit and police officers surrounded the premises during the takeover, NAN reports.
Lawyer to the owners, Raphael Adakole, had filed the suit – No. CV/2739/18 – in 2018 against TSTV company and its Managing Director, Bright Echefu.
The counsel prayed for an order declaring that the tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and defendants had elapsed by effluxion of time.
He also sought “an order directing the defendants to give up possession of the building together with its appurtenances, fixtures and fittings thereof;
“An order for the defendants to restore and reinstate the property of the plaintiff to a tenantable and good condition to the satisfaction of the plaintiff was outlined in the tenancy agreement;
“An an order mandating the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sum of N20,833,333;
“An order to compute profit of the demised premises at the rate of N4,166,666, being the calculated profit per month from May 2018 until the defendants give up vacant possession to the plaintiff;
“An order mandating the defendants to pay the sum of N20million as general damages to deter and serves as a lesson from treating other unsuspecting landlords in such manner;
“An order of N10 million against the defendants being the cost of the suit and any other order the court might deem fit in the circumstances of the suit.”
Justice Halilu expressed dismay that the defendants did not defend their action, despite receipt of court documents stipulating hearing notices.
He granted all the prayers of the plaintiff, explaining that it was the consequences of the defendants’ action.
The judge said that it is the duty of the court “to evaluate all evidence before it can come to conclusion of the case; the court must treat as sacrosanct the terms of an agreement freely entered into by the parties”
He stated that the terms of a contract between parties “are clothed with some degree of sanctity and if any question should arise with regard to contract, the terms in any document which constitute the contract are invariably the guide to its interpretation as set out by them”.
“Indeed, a defendant who has no defense to a certain claim shall not be allowed to dribble and cheat a claimant out of judgment,” Justice Halilu added.