Justice F.E.Messiri of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Jabi, Abuja, on Thursday ordered a businesswoman, Ramat Mercy Mba, to pay the sum of N70 million to a client over failure to deliver on a land transaction.
The amount to be paid by the client, John Ogedegbe, according to the judge, comprised a refund of N67,350,000 and general damages of N3,000,000.
The judge made the order while delivering judgment in the suit, marked, CV/3574/2021, brought before the court by the Edo State-based Ogedegbe, a businessman, in which he joined M a and Ramaosca Nigeria Limited as respondents.
Ogedegbe, through his lawyer, Edidiong Usungurua, claimed that the respondents were introduced to him sometime in July 2021 by one Barrister Emmanuel Ndueche and they presented themselves to him as Realtors and offered to acquire plots of land at Jabi, Katampe and Maitama for him.
ALSO READ: Court okays contempt notice on Cardoso over unpaid judgment
He further claimed that he thereafter paid the sum of N67,350,000 in 22 instalments for the plots of land. He added that since July 19, 2021, when he made the last payment, the respondents neither let him into possession of any of the plots of land nor refunded his money.
Ogedegbe further claimed that the first respondent used his money to complete her hotel, Habz Hotel and Suites at Kubwa, Abuja, adding that he made several demands for the respondents to either put him into possession of the lands or refund his money.
He, therefore, sought an order from the court for the N67,350,000 he paid to the respondents be paid back to him.
He also, among others, sought an order from the court directing the respondents to pay the sum of N20 million as general damages to him and another N3 million as special damages for the cost of the case.
The defendants had through their counsel, A.W. Chijioke Esq contended that they did not receive the said amount from the claimant but N10 million for the facilitation of allocation of land from the FCT Administration and not a sale of land to the claimant.
The defendants contended that the claim was “vexatious, frivolous, embarrassing, spurious and unfounded allegation as they are mere assertions made by the plaintiff.”
Source: