Mr. Andy Biney, a resident of Anaji, a suburb of Takoradi has dragged a popular local Lawyer, Mr. Frederick Faustinus Faidoo to the Sekondi High Court, Commercial division, for the recovery of GH�16,000.
The amount is the remainder of GH�36,000 paid to the lawyer for the purpose of purchasing a plot of land for him (plaintiff).
The plaintiff is also praying the court to compel the defendant to pay him GH�2,500 being expenses incurred on documentation on the land in question. A statement of claim filed by the plaintiff, narrated that on the 10th day of May 2011, the defendant collected GH�36,000 from him for a 0.11 acreage of land situated at Kwesimintsim, also a suburb of Takoradi.
Plaintiff claims he gave a cheque with a face value of GH�23,000 and GH�13,000 cash to the Lawyer. The Plaintiff averred that after paying the aforementioned sum to the lawyer for the parcel of land, he later realized that the land was in dispute, as someone else was already building on it. Consequently, plaintiff informed the defendant about the development, but was only told not to worry The Plaintiff contended that he demanded a refund of his money, for which the Lawyer gave him a cheque covering an amount of GH�20,000.
He said, when he demanded the remaining money, defendant told him in plain words that he would not pay the remaining GH�16,000 plus the documentation expenses and that the plaintiff could take him wherever he wanted. As a result, the plaintiff filed the writ at the High Court to compel the Lawyer to pay the balance of GH�16,000 plus the GH�2,500 expenses he incurred on the land and interest on the said amount at the current bank rate.
In his statement of defence, the defendant argued that the plaintiff came to his office, together with two friends to seek for his legal service in the purchase of a piece of land he (Plaintiff) claimed to have identified. The Lawyer argued that he contacted the landowners, who after negotiations agreed to sell the land to him (defendant) at the cost of GH�20,000.
He said prior to the meeting, the two friends of the plaintiff had informed him (defendant) that they had agreed on a price with the plaintiff, and the difference between the price, as agreed with the landowners and the amount they had agreed with the plaintiff, was their commission. The defendant further claimed that after the transaction, he never heard from the plaintiff, until over six months later when he (plaintiff) called to inform him (defendant) that he was having problems with the registration of his documents and that another person had laid claim to the land.
The defendant continued that he quickly notified the landowners about the development who assured him (plaintiff) of their perfect title and asked that the plaintiff exercise patience, as they (landowners) sue the transgressor. The defendant further argued that whilst the litigation was not progressing, the plaintiff informed him (defendant) that he wanted his money back. To that end, the defendant said he met with the land owners a couple of times until the plaintiff�s money was returned.
It is the case of the defendant that after the plaintiff received his money, then informed the defendant that he paid more than the GH�20,000 and that he gave some money to his friends to be given to the Lawyer. The defendant is contesting this claim. He denied ever receiving any such money through any third party.
<<Print>>