The State of Cameroon, through the Ministry of Urbanism and Housing, signed a lease agreement with Djoko Nicolas in 1985. The man had a house and the state needed a house to accommodate its staff.
The case of Djoko Nicolas against the State of Cameroon about “the wrongful termination of a lease agreement” reached its verdict on Tuesday 21 June. Indeed, the State of Cameroon, through the Ministry of Urbanism and Housing, signed a lease agreement with Djoko Nicolas in 1985. The man had a house and state needed a house to accommodate its staff. Without notifying the owner, the state terminated the contract. Informed of the termination of the contract, he filed an appeal before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court on 6 October 2003 to receive compensation. The case was examined on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 by the Yaounde Administrative Court has ruled.
The Kalara newspaper reporting this information in its edition of July 18, 2016 indicates that the relationship between Mr. Djoko, lessor, and the State of Cameroon, tenant, was born on 9 March 1985. At the time, the two sides signed a lease contract of indefinite duration. Mr. Djoko said the contract was established and he wasn’t worried over nothing, given the sustainability of the lease. Except that in 1991, six years after, the Minister of Town Planning and Housing decided to terminate the contract by a letter he had addressed to the lessor. The landlord clearly did not receive the letter and was wisely waiting for the payment of rents. Except that in eight years he received no franc. It was only in 1999 that the termination letter was received. Mr. Djoko believes he should be compensated for this lost time and especially the information that he did not recieve in time.
Absent at that hearing, he could not justify his action to the court. “In its statement of defense, the State of Cameroon concluded that Mr. Djoko did not respect the deadlines and seized justice in 2003 when he was informed of the termination of the contract in 1999. So, it’s too late, for the three months and sixty days he had to appear before the administrative judge, “the paper said.
The public prosecutor considered that the lease was not an administrative act. It was, he said, a contract under the influence of private law and that Mr. Djoko therefore had to seize a judicial court. In its decision, the court said the appeal of Mr. Djoko Nicolas was inadmissible.