Court orders status quo in suit to stop alleged forceful ejection

A Federal High Court in Lagos, on Wednesday, ordered parties to maintain status quo antebellum, in a suit challenging alleged forceful ejection of a tenant by the police.

Status quo antebellum refers to returning a thing or situation to its initial position , before something happened.

A Lagos-based lawyer, Mr Ogedi Ogu, had urged the court to issue an order restraining the police from further arresting, intimidating or detaining his client, Mr Vincent Uba, over tenancy matters.

Joined as respondents in the suit are the Administrator-General and Public Trustee, Oyo State, the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone II, Onikan, Lagos, and CSP Uba Adams.

Advertisement

Also joined are the Officer in Charge, Zonal Oracle Unit, SP Dahiru Ango, the investigating police officer, Insp Jonas Jatau, the Police Service Commission and a company, Vivastar Nig. Ltd.

When the case was called on Wednesday, counsel to the applicant informed the court of an exparte motion in the suit, which he said was accompanied by an affidavit of urgency.

He urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.

Justice Chukwujeku Aneke consequently, held that the justice in the case required that parties should maintain status quo, until final determination of the suit.

He adjourned the suit until Nov. 26, for hearing, directing that hearing notices should be served on the respondents.

In the suit, the applicant had urged the court to issue an order declaring that his arrest and detention by the second to fifth respondent on May 28, over tenancy issues, were unconstitutional.

He wanted the court to declare that his arrest and detention by the respondents, over his tenancy at No. 5, Association Ave. Illupeju, Lagos, by alleged instigation by the first and eighth respondents, was illegal.

The applicant wanted the court to declare that the blockage of the entrance and exit to his premises with sharp sand and granite, was an infringement on his right to freedom of movement and dignity of human person.

He averred that the denial of his rights to enter and exit while still in occupation of his flat as a tenant and without any opportunity to be heard by any court or tribunal, was a breach of his rights and therefore, unlawful.

The applicant is claiming N50 million against the respondents jointly and severally, as damages for breach of his rights to fair hearing, freedom of movement and dignity of human person.

In an affidavit in support of his suit, the applicant noted that he had been in lawful possession and occupation of a three bedroom flat as a tenant in the said property, since 2015.

He said that he was invited to the police station on May 26, through a call from the fourth respondent.

He pleaded for a convenient date to report at the station, but after his plea was refused, he contacted his lawyer, who further intervened until he was told to appear on May 28.

He said that on arriving at the station on May 28, he was shown a petition written by the first and eight respondents, informing him that the property he occupied as a tenant had been sold by the first respondent to the eight respondent.

According to the applicant, the notice came to him as a shock and he informed the police that the eigth respondent was not known to him since no notice had been given to him or any other tenant in the property.

He averted that the fourth respondent immediately warned him not to utter such words again after he insisted that the police station was not the appropriate place to pass such information across to tenants.

The applicant said that the fourth respondent ordered the fifth respondent to fill a detention form and detain the applicant until he would be ready to cooperate.

According to him, he was then taken before the third respondent, who enquired why he had not vacated the premises.

He added that when he responded that he required adequate time, he was shouted down.

He averred that he was granted bail same day, but later returned to the station on June 3, as directed, when was handed over an already prepared document and ordered to sign same.

He said that upon his refusal to sign, he was threatened and told by the third respondent, that he would be thrown out of the property.

According to the applicant, his lawyer was also harassed and bullied by the fourth respondent after he asked if the document was a court order or a notice to quit.

The applicant averred that he was going through unimaginable times with his family following a blockage into his apartment by the respondents.

(NAN)