By Gabriel Enogholase

BENIN—A chieftain of Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in Edo State, Chief Evelyn Igbafe, has been ordered by an Oredo Area Customary Court to vacate and deliver possession of the entire premises known as No. 4, Odekhiran Avenue, off 2nd Ugbor Road, GRA, Benin City, to Mr. Iriabho Egiebade, owner of the property.

The premises is made up of a five-bedroom duplex, three-bedroom guest chalet and a store building gate house.

Chief Igbafe was also ordered by the court to pay arrears of rent of N1.1 million as the balance of the May 20, 2015 to May 19, 2016 tenancy year and profit calculated at N108,333 per month from  May 20, 2016 until possession was delivered.

The court, in its judgement by Mrs. M.E. Itsueli (President) and Mr. Osagie Aiwerioghene (member) in the suit brought by Mr. Iriabho Egiebade through his counsel, Mr. Agbonmeikhe Iriabho, held that the plaintiff’s claim for recovery of possession of the property was successful as evidenced by his counsel’s oral evidence supported by documentary evidence.

Meanwhile, the defendant, Chief Igbafe has gone to an Edo State High Court sitting in Benin City to contest the judgment of the lower court.

In the appeal through her counsel, Mr. Jude Imagbeghian, she is praying the court to set aside the entire judgment of the lower court,  adding that the Presiding President and members of the court erred by assuming jurisdiction wrongly and gave possession of the property to the plaintiff/respondent despite not fulfilling the conditions precedent to commencing the action.

She particularly stated that the plaintiff/respondent ought to have given a letter of authorization to the solicitor before the issuance of the quite notice,  adding that the court ought to have struck out the plaintiff’s relief for possession having found out that the plaintiff/respondent did not give any authorization to the solicitor to issue the statutory notices.

However, the court held that the plaintiff’s attorney had stated under cross examination that the solicitor was authorized to initiate the process of recovering and possession of the property as against the contention of counsel for the defendant that failure to authorize the solicitor in writing was mere technicality and should not strip the court of the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.

It added that exhibits D and G were valid notices served on the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the tenancy agreement tendered before the court,  adding that exhibits B and E were handwritten agreements by the defendant on January 9, 2016 to vacate the property by April 20, 2016 and pay the rent arrears.

The court held that the plaintiff’s counsel oral evidence and exhibits B,D, E and G were not controverted or successfully challenged by the defendant and accordingly were deemed to have been admitted.