The Court of Appeal premises in Dar es Salaam. PHOTO | FILE
Dar es Salaam. The legal tussle over the mode of ownership of residential apartments pitting real estate dealer, Oysterbay Villas Limited, and Kinondoni Municipal Council for nearly ten years is far from over.
The two have accused each other of breaching a joint venture agreement for construction of residential apartments at Oysterbay at the ownership of 25 percent for the local authority and 75 percent for the firm.
And the recent decision of the Court of Appeal to set aside a 2019 decision of the Commercial Division of the High Court that cleared the municipality of breach of contract triggered new anxiety to the parties and real estate dealers who keenly await the outcome of the case.
Recently, the apex court directed that the case file be returned to the Commercial Division for determination of a complaint that a judge did not give Oysterbay Villas opportunity to be heard when she decided that the certificate of approval for transferring the land to the dealer had expired.
The court agreed with the firm that the judge who heard the case condemned them without hearing their side but raised the issue of certificate of approval of transfer of the land and concluded it had expired.
10-year-old legal wrangle
The dispute started in 2010, three years into the joint venture agreement sealed in December 2007 for the development and ownership of two properties situated at Mawenzi and Ruvu Roads, Oysterbay, Dar es Salaam.
It was the term and conditions of the contract that Oysterbay Villas would construct two blocks of 24 units of residential apartments on plot no 322 and four blocks of 40 units on plot no 277.
Four more apartments were added on plot no 277 to make the total number of units to be constructed to reach 68.
According to Oysterbay Villas the deal turned sour after the municipality refused to issue a certificate of title bearing joint names of both parties as per the terms of the contract. It accused the municipality of refusing to transfer the right of occupancy.
Undaunted, the company filed a suit in the Commercial Division of the High Court in 2011 in which it sought, among other things, a declaration that the authority was in breach of the joint venture agreements.
It asked the court to order the authority to comply and abide by the contract by issuing a new certificate of title in the joint names of the parties.
No comments :
Post a Comment