Sunday, 2nd October 2022
<To guardian.ng
Search
Breaking News:
Law  

Clients drag firm to court over alleged breach of contract

By Yetunde Ayobami Ojo
13 September 2022   |   2:54 am
A firm, Brains & Hammers Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Adebola Sheidu, have been dragged before a Lagos State High Court, by two of its clients, J. Ajagbe and G.E Ogie, over the company’s alleged breach of contract.

Lagos high court, Igbosere. Photo/wikipedia

A firm, Brains & Hammers Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Adebola Sheidu, have been dragged before a Lagos State High Court, by two of its clients, J. Ajagbe and G.E Ogie, over the company’s alleged breach of contract.

The claimant alleged infractions against the respondents and failure to deliver properties to them since 2019. The claimants, in their originating motion exparte numbered LD/6115GCM/2022, and filed by their counsel, Adetunji Adedoyin-Adeniyi, stated that they subscribed to the properties described as Unit D04 Coopest Beach Resort Estate, Behind NICON Town Osapa London.

They claimed that they have completed payments in line with their respective offer letters issued by the first defendant. The contentious property are: one unit of five bedroom fully detached duplex with a maid’s room situate at Shell Coopest Resort Estate, Lekki, Lagos as contained in the offer letter dated February 4, 2019 and Unit T6-09A Coopest Beach Resort Estate, Behind NICON Town Osapa London; being one unit of four bedroom terrace with domestic quarters situate at Shell Coopest Resort Estate, Lekki, Lagos as contained in the offer letter dated August 14, 2019.

The claimants stated that the first defendant, Brains & Hammers Limited, refused to issue requisite documents evidencing the transfer of proprietary interest in the properties, which are the subject matter of the suit to them upon their failure to accede to the imposition of price variation costs by the defendant, which is not in compliance with the contracts executed between them and the defendant through their respective offer letters dated February 4, 2019 and August 14, 2019 respectively.

The claimants also alleged that the defendant prevented them from having access to their properties, which they finished with their personal monies, as the units was sold to them as Semi-finished (carcass), that is the subject matter of this suit. And that despite huge cost implications and investment on the property, the claimants and their families have not been able to access their personal belongings, clothes, children’s school books, personal gadgets and have put the claimants in a difficult situation as all their properties are in their respective units.

The defendants despite been served with the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, are yet to file any defence.

Meanwhile, Justice Olumuyiwa Oluseun, who is sitting as the vacation judge, has fixed September 15, 2022l for report. The claimants are, therefore, asking the court for “a pre-emptive order among other orders of injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their affiliate and or sister companies or entities, their directors, officers, servants, agents, assigns or privies and or however called in relation to the defendants, from disturbing, interfering, disposing, transferring, selling, assigning, revoking or dealing with the first claimant’s property described as Unit D04 Coopest Beach Resort Estate, Behind NICON Town Osapa London.

The claimants also asked the court for “a declaration that the contract entered between them and the first defendant with respect to Unit D04 Coopest Beach Resort Estate, Behind NICON Town Osapa London, being one Unit of five bedroom fully detached duplex with a maid’s room situate at Shell Coopest Resort Estate, Lekki, Lagos as contained in the offer letter dated February 4, 2019 and Unit T6-09A Coopest Beach Resort Estate, Behind NICON Town Osapa London, being one Unit of four bedroom terrace with domestic quarters situate at Shell Coopest Resort Estate, Lekki, Lagos as contained in the offer letter dated August 14, 2019 offered and accepted by the Claimants is valid and subsisting.

“A declaration that the first defendant’s imposition of 20 per cent price variation on the property offer price levied on the first claimant and 10 per cent price variation on the property offer price levied on the second claimant as contained in the first defendant’s letter dated February 4, 2019 and August 14, 2019 respectively are null and void.”