■ As counsel prays Court not to recognize arbitral awards; property owner joins issues
An Arbitration Tribunal, headed by Miriam Kombo-Ezeh, Esq, has directed Senator Tokunbo Afikuyomi to vacate a property he occupies in Maitama District of Abuja in the Federal Capital Territory.
The Tribunal also directed the former Senator to pay the sum of N11million being mesne profit for the period he occupied the property without taking a new term of lease.
The Senator was further asked to refund all the Arbitration fees he failed or refused to pay at the Tribunal in his unsuccessful attempts and without just cause to frustrate the timely determination of the matter at the Tribunal.
But Afikuyomi, through his counsel, Seun Awoladi, has filed a suit before a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Jabi area of Abuja, presided over by Justice Babangida Hassan for non-recognition of the arbitral awards.
The property owner, one Prince Samsom Ataiyero, through his counsel, N.I. Harrison, Esq and Christian Moneke, Esq joined issues with Afikuyomi, praying the court for registration and recognition of the arbitral awards.
When the matter came up on Monday, September 23, 2024 for hearing, the court granted the oral application by counsel to Prince Ataiyero to withdraw a motion on notice for consolidation marked M/11059/2024 because it had been spent since their substantive application marked M11024/2024 was now properly before the court.
Afikuyomi’s counsel told the court that they were not objecting to the withdrawal of the motion on notice and that they would not be asking for cost. Justice Hassan in a bench ruling averred that the application was granted and the motion was deemed withdrawn.
Ataiyero’s counsel said that their substantive application was seeking recognition for the purpose of enforcement of the arbitral awards by the FCT Multi-door Courthouse on June 21, 2024, stating that all their prayers were contained on the face of the motion paper.
But Afikuyomi’s counsel interjected, saying the substantive suit was to set aside the arbitral awards and not a motion to enforce. According to him: “We filed our originating motions on July 8, marked CB/3139/24.”
Justice Hassan resolved the issue of first in service in favour of Afikuyomi since Ataiyero’s substantive suit before the court was dated July 9, 2024. Atayeiro’s counsel said: “we do not have any problem with that as long as both suits are before your lordship.”
At this point, Afikuyomi’s counsel asked the court for a short adjournment of two weeks to enable both parties to resolve the matter out of court, otherwise, they would proceed with the matter.
Ataiyero’s counsel urged the court to adopt their processes first and thereafter the other party could do whatever they wanted. But after much plea by Afikuyomi’s counsel and Justice Hassan’s avuncular intervention, urging Ataiyero’s counsel to agree to the out-of-court settlement overture, Ataiyero’s counsel agreed and the matter was adjourned until October 16, 2024.
It would be recalled that Afikuyomi, one-time member of Senate [1999-2007] had leased a three-bedroom duplex with two-bedroom bungalow guests chalet, two boys’ quarters (BQ), serviced with air conditioners and swimming pool, located at No. 33, Lake Chad Crescent, Maitama District from Prince Ataiyero, using the name of his law firm- Liberty Solicitors, for a period of five (5) years, serviceable annually.
The period for the lease was 1st September, 2018 – 31st August, 2023.
Trouble started in the middle of the term of the lease when the Senator started defaulting in his rent obligations and this continued after the expiration of the term of lease.
Our Correspondent learnt that the Lease Agreement contained an Arbitration Clause which encouraged parties to settle any of their disputes by way of arbitration instead of the usual litigation.
It was in keeping to this arbitration clause that Senator Afikuyomi’s landlord applied to the Abuja Multi-Door Courthouse in line with the principle of “pacta sunct servanda (sanctity of agreement must be kept)” for an arbitral proceeding which saw to the delivery of its decision otherwise called “Final Award” on 21st June, 2024.
Miriam Kombo-Ezeh, Esq., the erudite arbitrator had directed that the respondent, Sen. Tokunbo Afikuyomi, should comply with the arbitral awards on or before July 8, 2024.
It was further gathered that Senator Afikuyomi failed, neglected or refused to honour the decision of the Arbitration Tribunal, which by the Tenancy Agreement signed by parties during the life of the lease, ought to bind parties.
Afikuyomi had rather resorted to buying time in his efforts to continue in occupation of a house he didn’t build.
He had rather approached the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, to seek the setting aside of the decision of the Arbitration Tribunal on grounds that he didn’t have notice of the appointment of the Arbitrator and also on grounds of bias.
These grounds had been rebutted in the papers filed by the Landlord’ lawyers who even produced to the Court, evidence of consent form signed by the Senator’s lawyers for the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.
READ ALSO:
- “I’m Not Fela, I’m BIG7”, Burna Boy Warns Against Comparison
- Chukwueze To Work Under New Coach At AC Milan
- Gospel Artist Ebuka Songs Gifts Parents 2nd Car Gift In 2024
- Actor RMD Celebrates 24th Wedding Anniversary With Wife Jumobi
- 170 graduates benefit from Shell, partners’ internship programme
While the rent on the property expired on August 31, 2023, the court papers indicated that Afikuyomi is still occupying the property without renewing his rent or taking steps to vacate the leased premises, about a year now after his rent expired since 31st August, 2023.
Available information showed that while Senator Tokunbo Afikuyomi had gone to the High Court to set aside the Final Award, his landlord, Prince Ataiyero had filed his own motion before the same Court seeking the Court’s recognition and enforcement of the Award as was witnessed in court on Monday, September 23, 2024
From the Court processes filed both at the Tribunal and the High Court which were sighted by our correspondent, it was obvious that the key contention between parties is delivery of vacant possession of the property since the lease which was for a fixed period had long elapsed.
