The court ruled that notice must be given for breaches before termination can occur, and denied the counterclaim due to non-compliance with agreement terms.

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiff's claim for specific performance and damages and the defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession and double rental etc. The prayers in the statement of claim inter alia read as follows:

(a) specific performance of the Site Agreement dated 28.2.2008;

(b) that the Site Agreement be extended for 2 years commencing from 1.1.2011 until 31.12.2012 at a revised rental rate of no more than 10%;

(c) damages in addition to or in lieu of specific performance.

Costs And Allocatur Fees

[2] I have also invited the parties to submit as to costs as it is now the practice of the court to assess costs and thereafter fix costs at the end of hearing to avoid taxation formalities which often takes much of the court's time. This new practice of fixing costs in lieu of the full procedure of taxation is presently in vogue not only in the High Courts, but also in the court of Appeal and the Federal court. I realize by fixing costs and not directing 'allocatur fees' to be paid in actual fact leads to loss of revenue which may be in millions or billions. The fixing of costs procedure by the judge in almost all cases takes into consideration all the requirements which are essential to compute costs in the ordinary process of taxation save that the formalities of filing of papers are not essential. In consequence it will be appropriate to order allocatur fees to be paid on the extraction of the order of costs. To determine whether such an order should be made I invited both parties to submit whether the court can make two separate orders whether it is related to an application or full trial - the first being the usual order in the terms prayed for by the party, and the second being a separate order for fixed costs with an allocatur fees to be payable at the time of extraction of the order with a direction the registrar to issue the registrar's certificate relating to the allocatur fees, to satisfy the requirements of O. 59 of RHC 1980 .

Brief Facts Of Case

[3] The plaintiff has been given license to erect and affix advertisement panels on the front faÇade of the defendant's building for a rental per annum. There was an obligation for the defendant to extend the agreement for further two years at a revised rental rate of no more than 10% provided the plaintiff has complied with all terms of the agreement, inter alia (a) the plaintiff shall obtain all such approvals before commencing construction of the Signage from the relevant authorities; and (b) the plaintiff shall obtain all such approvals, license or consent for the display of the advertisement on the Signage on the said Site from the relevant authorities.

[4] The plaintiff sought for an extension as per the agreement but the defendant refused without stating any reasons. In this action the defendant says:

1. Based on the Defendant's record, the Plaintiff had only submitted one license and that the only license that was obtained by the Plaintiff for the Signage had already expired. The said license was only valid for 3 months commencing from 24.5.2010 until 23.8.2010;

2. The Plaintiff did not provide any other valid license from the commencement of the Site Agreement on 1.1.2008;

3. The Plaintiff's failure to renew the license for the said signage is deemed as an act that constitutes default of the terms of the said Site Agreement;

4. The default of the terms of the Site Agreement expressly and/or impliedly by the Plaintiff is deemed as a breach of the Site Agreement thus terminating and/or revoking the Site Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant;

5. The Plaintiff's acts of not obtaining the license required and evidence of non-compliance with all relevant l