Lagos bizman sues bank for N36.8m

A Badagry High Court in Lagos has fixed January 25 for further hearing in a N36.8 million claim against the United Bank for Africa (UBA). A Lagos businessman, Alhaji Lasisi Ayomumoye, has dragged UBA to court claiming N36.8 million for alleged breach of deed of a property sub-lease. In a statement of claim filed by […]

A Badagry High Court in Lagos has fixed January 25 for further hearing in a N36.8 million claim against the United Bank for Africa (UBA).

A Lagos businessman, Alhaji Lasisi Ayomumoye, has dragged UBA to court claiming N36.8 million for alleged breach of deed of a property sub-lease.

In a statement of claim filed by his counsel, Akinpelu Salau, the claimant said a deed of sub-lease of October 1, 2006 was breached by UBA on his building situated at Plot 15, Aina Layout, Lagos-Abeokuta road, Dopemu, Lagos State.

He alleged that contrary to the deed of sub-lease, UBA wholly demolished the property and erected a new structure without the claimant’s consent or approval.

In the alternative, the businessman is demanding N24 million as the cost of restructuring the present building to a multi-purpose building, similar to what the structure was when the deed was signed.

He alleged that upon the discovery of the breach, the claimant wrote several letters to the bank, requesting for compensation, but the bank ignored him.

The claimant alleged that the bank, in 2008, registered a forged deed of sub-lease, purporting same to be the one executed by him.

He added that the document fraudulently registered by the bank on the property was fundamentally different from that which was executed by both parties in 2006.

At the resumed hearing of the matter, Salawu said the amendment of statement of claims by the defendant was filed only on December 5, and that he needed time to study it for necessary response.

Although the defendants were not represented by any lawyer at the hearing, it had, in its earlier statement of defence filed by its counsel, Mr.  O. U.  Inneh, on Sept. 1, 2009, denied the allegations of the claimant.

The bank claimed that there were “several collateral agreements between the two parties that the leased property would be demolished and re-built to meet the corporate style structure of the defendants.”

It, therefore, contended that “the suit was frivolous, vexatious, irritating, unmeritorious and a brazen abuse of judicial process”, adding that the claimant was not entitled to the relief being sought by him.