About 120 people have sued United Prosperous and Peaceful Zambia (UPPZ) president Charles Chanda in the Lusaka High Court, for allegedly offering them sale of land fraudulently, with the purpose of swindling members of the public.
The 120 purchasers of diverse subdivisions of plot no 3096, Charliesdale situated off Airport road in Lusaka, have sued Brook Cheriths Estates Agents’ Developers Limited and Chanda as first and second defendants, claiming that the defendants were not legal owners of the said plot offered to the public.
They are seeking an order of nareva injunction to restrain Chanda from making transactions on two bank accounts belonging to him.
Nathan Sinkala and 119 others, want the court to restrain Chanda and his company Brooks Cheriths Estates Agents, from making transactions on the Stanbic account, East Park branch and another account held at Zanaco, disposing of its assets or generally, transacting on any bank accounts held by the defendants.
In a statement of claim filed in the Lusaka High Court, Tuesday, the plaintiffs stated that Chanda was a leader of UPPZ and director of Cheriths.
The 120 stated that sometime in 2018, the defendants invited members of the public by way of advertisement to purchase land under a project christened ‘Charliesdale’ situated off airport road, in Chongwe district.
Sinkala and others stated that following the invitation, they severally purchased about 130 proposed subdivisions at the consolidated sum of K3,037,637, inclusive of service charges which had been itemized in a schedule filed into court.
They claimed that they were instructed to deposit money into Stanbic account at East Park branch held by Brook and another account number held ZANACO to Chanda.
The plaintiffs further stated that it was an express term of the agreement that the plaintiffs to take possession of the said properties within acceptance of the offer.
They however stated that contrary to the agreement, the defendants failed to deliver vacant possession of the diverse proposed subdivisions to them.
They stated that they would ever at trial that they subsequently discovered that the defendants purported offer of sale of the plot 3096 was fraudulently done with the said purpose of swindling members of the public.
They claimed that the defendants were not the legal owners of plot 3096 which they offered to the public as such they had no legal authority to subdivide the land and sell it.
Sinkala and others stated that the defendants have since withdrawn and misappropriated the money paid by the plaintiffs despite knowing that they were not going to meet their contractual obligations of giving them the land.
They are seeking an order of damages for breach of contract and an order of damages for fraud, interests on the sum claimed plus costs for the proceedings.