RevolutionPlus Property Development Company Limited has been dragged before a Magistrate’s Court in Lagos State by a subscriber, Ebele Ikpeoyi, over alleged breach of contract and failure to deliver a property allegedly paid for between 2020 and 2022.

In the suit filed by her lawyer, 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.

Upon full payment of the purchase price, she was issued with an allocation letter by the real estate company in March 2022. She alleged that rather than execute the necessary documents for the transfer of 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 also alleged that despite repeated request (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 refused to accede to her demand.

According to the claimant, upon filing the suit, the real estate company sent her a post-dated cheque which was rejected twice by her bank with an instruction that she returns 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 on August 7, 2023, the Defendant-company informed the court that it has an application seeking to have the court 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, and 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 hearing of pending applications.

To join our CITY LAWYER ROUNDTABLE on WhatsApp, click here 

To join our Telegram platform, click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083.

All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.