Two intended purchasers of properties have dragged Kingsland City Investment Limited and its property consultant to the Lusaka High Court, claiming a refund of over K200,000 after failed contracts to purchase land.
Wendy Sinkala and Suzyo Mulenga have sued Kingsland City Investment Limited and Joy Munthali, seeking a refund of K230,000, damages for inconvenience caused, damages for emotional stress arising from the defendants actions, interest and costs.
But Kingsland City Investment Limited, which is engaged in the business of developing land for sale, has denied the allegations stating that Sinkala and Mulenga could not have suffered loss and damages because the company did not owe them any money.
In a statement of claim filed in the Lusaka High Court commercial registry recently, Sinkala and Mulenga stated that on February 3, 2018, Sinkala entered into a contract with Kingsland City Investment Limited to purchase Plot C1, 46, L3-B of stand No. LUS/LN-24982/3 at the sum of US$364,477.
The duo stated that Sinkala made a down payment of K200,000 to Kingsland City Investment Limited through Munthali as partial fulfillment of the said contract.
Sinkala and Mulenga however claimed that Munthali allegedly neglected or failed to enter the correct payment data in Kingsland City Investment’s books of accounts.
The two plaintiffs further stated that when Kingsland City Investment Limited noticed inconsistencies in the payment data in its books accounts, Sinkala exercised her right to terminate the contract and demanded for a refund of K200,000.
Sinkala and Mulenga stated that on May 31, 2019, Kingsland City Investment Limited made a partial refund of K80,000 leaving a balance of K120,000, still unpaid and owing.
The two stated that despite several reminders, Kingsland City Investment Limited has either refused, neglected or ignored Sinkala’s demands for a refund of the money owing.
Sinkala and Mulenga further stated that in or around early 2019, Munthali persuaded Mulenga to enter into a contract with Kingsland City Investment Limited for the purchase of stand no. LUS/LN-24982/3.
The two added that Munthali informed Mulenga that in order to secure the property, she had to make a down payment of K110,000.
Sinkala and Mulenga claimed that after collecting the said down payment from Mulenga, Munthali became elusive and evasive, giving various excuses for not issuing the requisite documentation as evidence of the said transaction.
“Despite several reminders, Kingsland City Investment Limited and Munthali have refused, neglected or ignored Mulenga’s demand for a refund of the money owing. Thus the plaintiffs have suffered financial loss and emotional distress due to the defendants’ unscrupulous behaviour,” read the statement of claim.
But in its defence, Kingsland City Investment Limited has denied the allegations, arguing that it never failed to keep correct payment data of Sinkala’s payment and would show that she did make a partial payment of K120, 000 spread over a period of almost a year.
Kingsland City stated that on February 26 this year, it made an earlier payment to Sinkala of K40,000 having in May 2019 paid her K80,000 which effectively meant that the full refund of K120,000 had been made.
The company however denied knowing Mulenga and further claimed that it never entered into a contract with Mulenga at any given time and that it had never received any payment towards the purchase of a property from Mulenga as claimed.
“Put simply, Sinkala and Mulenga cannot have suffered loss and damages because Kingsland City Investment does not owe any money to either of them,” read the defence.