RevolutionPlus MD
A land subscriber, Ebele Ikpeoyi has sued a Lagos-based property firm, Revolutionplus Property Development Company Limited before a Magistrate Court, in Lagos over an alleged breach of contract and failure to deliver a property allegedly paid between 2020 and 2022.
In the suit filed by her counsel Mr. Ugochukwu Eze, the aggrieved subscriber, who is a legal practitioner, stated that she subscribed to purchasing a plot of land located at Emirates Seaview Estate, Ibeju Lekki, Lagos State.
She stated that upon full payment of the purchase price, she was issued an allocation letter by the real estate company in March 2022.
She alleged that rather than execute the necessary documents for the transfer of an interest in the property, RevolutionPlus sent her an email stating that another property, located in a certain Highbury Estate and distinct from the land she had paid for, would be allocated to her.
The claimant further alleged that despite repeated requests, both directly and through her lawyers for the allocation of the land she paid for or a refund of the purchase price among other fees, the defendant has vehemently refused to accede to her demand.
According to the claimant, upon filing the suit, RevolutionPlus sent her a post-dated cheque which was rejected twice by her bank with an instruction that she returns the same to the issuer. She added that due to the defendant’s default, she incurred huge costs in securing another property around the area
The claimant is praying the court to award damages against the real estate company for breach of contract.
At the resumed hearing of the matter earlier on August 7, 2023, the defendant company informed the court that it has an application before the court seeking to strike out the suit or refer the parties to arbitration.
He argued that the parties agreed to resolve any dispute between them by arbitration, adding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
But the Claimant’s counsel argued that his client never signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause with RevolutionPlus, adding that assuming parties ever had such an agreement, the debt sought to be recovered by the Claimant has been admitted by the defendant.
He argued that there is no dispute for the court to refer to arbitration. Citing some authorities, the Claimant’s counsel stated that the Court has no power to refer the parties to arbitration given the circumstances of the case.
The presiding Magistrate however stated that he would not be able to determine the defendant’s application as he may be leaving the service soon. He added that it would be better for the application to be argued before a Magistrate who would take over the case, urging the parties to take steps to resolve the dispute. The matter was adjourned to October 4, 2023, for a hearing of pending applications.
About The Author
