A BUSINESSWOMAN has denied failing to refund People’s Alliance for Change (PAC) president Andyford Banda K353,000, which was paid to her as part of the purchase price for an apartment in Livingstone.
Bridget Zulu has told the Lusaka High Court that Banda had been properly advised that the refund would be made from the proceeds of sale of the said property to another purchaser, as per the conditions of sale.
In this matter, Banda has sued Zulu, seeking an order that she pays him K353,000, being a refund of money paid to her with respect to a cancelled contract of sale for a subdivision of stand 2613/177 in Livingstone.
He also wants interest, costs and any other relief the court may deem fit.
But in her defence filed in the Lusaka High Court on December 30, 2020, Zulu denied that she had failed or neglected to refund Banda the said K353,000.
She admitted that she agreed to sell Banda a proposed subdivision of stand No. 2316/177 in Livingstone, which property comprised an apartment and bare land upon which the apartment stands.
Zulu stated that because of Banda’s default, she incurred extra costs to clear the FINCA debt which the parties had clearly agreed would be paid for by Banda as part of the purchase price of the property.
She stated that the variation of the conditions of sale was due to the default of Banda but because she had a strong desire to complete the sale, she obliged to the variation, believing that Banda would honour his obligation to pay the purchase price.
Zulu stated that contrary to Banda’s assertion, she would show at trial that the debt with FINCA was fully settled on February 29, 2020 and that the title had been released.
She further stated that she refused to yield vacant possession of the property because Banda had not made good his obligation to settle an instalment of the purchase price which was a condition to be met before vacant possession could be given.
“The rescission of the contract was warranted due to the plaintiff’s consistent breach of the conditions of sale. The defendant denies that she has failed or neglected to refund the plaintiff the said sum of K353,000 as alleged in the statement of claim. The defendant will aver at trial that the plaintiff had been properly advised that the refund would be made from the proceeds of sale of the property to another purchaser as per the conditions of sale. The property has been advertised for sale,” read the defence.
“Save as hereinbefore expressly admitted, the defendant denies each and every claim set out in the statement of claim as if the same were herein set out and traversed seriatim.”
Banda had stated in his statement of claim that Zulu was a registered owner of plot 2613/177 situated in Livingstone.
He stated that by contract of sale entered between him and Zulu on November 29, 2019, the defendant sold subdivision of plot 2613/177, comprising a semi detached housing unit to him at a consideration of K700,000.
Banda stated that prior to the execution of the contract of sale between the parties, Zulu borrowed money from FINCA and had lodged the certificate of title with respect to plot 2613/177 with the said FINCA.
“According to the special conditions attached to the said contract of sale, Banda was to pay the K700,000 to Zulu as follows: the sum of K210,000 to FINCA as part of settlement of the purchase price of the property sold to Banda. The sum of K31,500.00 to be paid prior to execution of the contract of sale. The sum of K458,500 to be paid in four equal instalments of K114,625 commencing on December 4, 2019 and ending on March 10, 2020,” read the claim.
He stated that on February 28, last year, he had paid Zulu K278, 000 leaving a balance of K422,000 of the purchase price.
Banda stated that it was a term of the revised agreement between the parties that Zulu would ensure that she paid the full amount due to FINCA in order to unencumber the title deeds with respect to the property.
He stated that it was also agreed that Zulu would yield vacant possession of the property subject to the sale agreement on March 15, 2020.
Banda stated that in compliance with the revised payment schedule, he paid the defendant K50,000 on February 28, 2020 and a further payment of K25,000 on March 4, last year.
He added that prior to making the second payment of K25,000 that was due on March 6, 2020, he was made aware that Zulu had not settled her indebtedness to FINCA and that the title for the property had not yet been released by the lending institution.
“Banda, being weary of Zulu’s failure to pay FINCA as agreed, held back the instalment of K25,000 that was due on March 6, 2020 and demanded that the defendant pay FINCA before any more money could be paid to her,” read the claim.
He added that Zulu also refused to yield vacant possession of the property, citing Covid-19.
Banda further stated that Zulu subsequently terminated the contract of sale.
He explained that it was a term of contract of sale that in the event of termination by the defendant, the defendant would be liable to refund the plaintiff all amounts of monies paid with respect to the purchase price either from proceeds of sale of the property to another buyer or any other source.
Banda stated that as at the date of termination of the contract of sale, he had paid Zulu K353, 000.
He stated that Zulu had failed or neglected to refund him the K353,000 despite several requests to that effect by him, resulting in him suffering loss.