A real estate firm, RevolutionPlus Property Development Company Limited has been taken to a Magistrate’s Court in Lagos State by a subscriber named Ebele Ikpeoyi.

The subscriber alleges breach of contract and failure to deliver a property that was supposedly paid for between 2020 and 2022.

According to the lawsuit filed by her lawyer, Mr. Ugochukwu Eze, Ebele Ikpeoyi, a legal practitioner, subscribed to the purchase of a plot of land situated at Emirates Seaview Estate, Ibeju Lekki, Lagos State. After completing the full payment for the property, she received an allocation letter from the real estate company in March 2022.

However, instead of proceeding with the necessary documentation for transferring the property’s ownership, RevolutionPlus informed her via email that she would be allocated a different property located in Highbury Estate, distinct from the land she originally paid for.

The Claimant further alleges that despite numerous requests, both directly and through legal representatives, for the property she paid for or a refund of the total amount paid along with other associated fees, RevolutionPlus declined to meet her demands until she filed a lawsuit in November 2022. She claims that after filing the lawsuit, the real estate company provided her with a post-dated cheque.

However, her bank rejected the cheque twice, instructing her to return it to the issuer. She also asserts that due to the Defendant’s breach of contract, she incurred substantial costs while securing an alternative property in the same area where she initially purchased the land from RevolutionPlus. As a result, she is seeking damages from the real estate company for their contractual breach.

During the recent court session on August 7, 2023, the Defendant’s counsel, Samson Adelowo, informed the court that they had filed an application to either dismiss the lawsuit or refer the parties to arbitration. He argued that both parties had agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration, which meant that the court lacked jurisdiction to handle the case. However, the Claimant’s lawyer countered that his client had not signed any agreement containing an arbitration clause.

Furthermore, even if there had been such an agreement, the debt being pursued by the Claimant was not in dispute, as it had been acknowledged by the Defendant. Consequently, there was no contention for the court to refer to arbitration. The Claimant’s lawyer cited legal precedents and maintained that the court lacked the authority to refer the case to arbitration under the circumstances.

In an unexpected twist, the Magistrate announced that he might not be able to adjudicate on the Defendant’s application due to his imminent departure from the position.

He suggested that the application should be argued before the Magistrate who would succeed him in handling the case. The Magistrate encouraged both parties to seek a resolution and adjourned the proceedings to October 4, 2023, for the hearing of pending applications.

In this article