Chisco Transport In Legal Battle With Family Over Property Right

490
Gridlock as tankers shut down Apapa road leading to Apapa Port in Lagos.

Justice O Harrison of the Lagos State High Court, Igbosere, has fixed May 20, for Case Management Conference (CMC) in the suit filed by Chisco Transport Nigeria Limited (CTNL) against a family over the right to property.
The transport firm is currently in a legal battle with a family over right to a property situated at No 6, Ikorodu Road, Jibowu, Yaba, Lagos.
Listed as respondents in the suit are the administrators of the estate of Chief Joseph Akanbi Oyelowo, Mr Oladuuni Oyelowo and Mr Olatunji Oyelowo.
The claimant in the suit no LD/5324GCMW/18 asked the court to declare that Lagos State Government is the lawful owner of the mentioned property.
CTNL averred that by the virtue of the revocation of Certificate of Occupancy in respect of the property, the proprietary rights are vested in the hand of the state government and based on that the respondents have no right in law to demand rent or exercise any legal right over the property.
However, the respondents, in their statement of defence, denied every allegation in the statement of claim of CTNL, disclosing that they are not the administrators of estate of the late Chief J.A Oyelowo, the owner of the mentioned property, which comprises five bedrooms detached and service quarters, which is the subject matter of the suit.
The respondents averred that the claimant had been paying its rent severally and consequently since 1995 and not 1996 as claimed.
They averred that the state government or any of its agents has never raised any adverse claim or interest of the ownership as against the interest of respondents in the property.
The respondents averred that based on the right they have on the property, the claimant who is currently their tenant approached them for sale of the property.
Respondents are of the view that despite negotiation of sale being discussed by parties, the claimant had a duty to pay it’s rent as a yearly tenant as that was the usual act.
“There was actually a discussion on the intention to sell the property to the claimant but parties never agreed on the purchase price. A mere agreement to sell is not the same as a duty to the payment of rent.
“The defendant did not conceal to revocation from the claimant and such concealment is not possible as the acquisition had been gazetted, such becomes a public document,” respondents averred.
The Oyelowos, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the case, adding that it was ill-motivated and abuse of court process.
However CTNL wants the court to declare that the respondents cannot forcibly eject or remove it from the said property.