COUPLE IN COURT TO RESCUE RETIREMENT HOME SOLD BY PUBLIC AUCTION.

0
1543
Bank of Baroda Kenya headquarters.

BY SAM ALFAN.

A couple has sued Bank of Baroda (K) ltd for breach of contract and selling of their retirement home using underhand techniques and exerting undue pressure on them.

Kollengode Lakshminarayan and Anapula Ambikavati allege that the sale of the home to Mary Ndurungi was illegal because they were never notified of the planed auction.

Further, the couple alleges that the lender violated its duty of care and hoodwinking them to execute security documents.

They want the court to direct the Nairobi chief land registrar to cancel the transfer of the property to Ndurungi. The couple is also pleading with the court to order Ndurungi to vacate the Villa.

“By reason of the matters aforesaid, the plaintiffs and their family have suffered mental trauma, immense suffering, loss and damage,” the couple said in the court papers.

The man and his wife through lawyer Mburu Mwangi claim that they purchased the property in November 2011 for Sh29.5 million from Santsoh Kumari Bahl, Rakesh Kumar Bahl and Rishi Bahl Verinder.

The property had been charged to the bank over a debt of Sh23.6 million.

They said they purchased the Villa and sought a loan of Sh22.3 million for the house and a further Sh5 million for home improvement. While the first batch of the loan was disbursed, the lender allegedly declined to facilitate the Sh5 million as agreed.

Despite breaching the contract, the couple alleges that they continued servicing the loan until June 5, 2016 when they were forcibly evicted from the house.

Court documents state that they had paid Sh15.6 million at the time of eviction, plus another Sh7 million made as deposit to the sellers after the bank failed to finance them at 90 percent of the purchase price.

They said they purchased the Villa as their retirement home hence had no plans of transferring it to Ndurungi.

“The plaintiffs aver that the unlawful sale and transfer of the suit property by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant was motivated by a higher purchase price that the villa fetched in the unlawful transaction,” court documents read.

It is their claim that the loan never fell into arrears and the sale therefore, was fraudulent and unlawful. It is also their argument that there was no auction, and if it ever took place, then it was irregular as the new owner never made any payment at the fall of the hammer.

“Consequently, the plaintiffs aver that the suit property was in fact never sold during the purported auction,” they claimed.

LEAVE A REPLY