BUSINESSMAN Umar Farouk got a reprieve on Thursday when the Abuja High Court ordered that the Federal Housing Authority refund him the sum of 3.79 million naira.
According to the court, the amount was the money the government agency received from Farouk, who is a businessman based in Abuja, as payment for the latter to acquire a three-bedroom apartment at the Federal Housing Authority Estate in Lugbe, which the Authority failed to deliver.
Justice Angela Otaluka, who presided over the case, also ordered the federal housing agency to pay an additional N350,000 to the plaintiff as general damages.
The judge also ordered the housing agency to pay Farouk five per cent interest per annum on the judgment debt from the day of the judgment until the date of full refund of the amount to Farouk.
Mr. Charles Chimezie, counsel to Farouk, said his client paid the said amount to the defendant in November 2008, but never took possession of the property.
He had asked the court to give an order compelling the defendant to refund his money.
Farouk also demanded the sum of N10 million as general damages from the defendant for breaching the contract, and also for “tying his money down”.
He also asked for 20 per cent interest on the amount from November 2008 till the date of judgment, as well as 10 per cent judgment interest.
According to Justice Otaluka, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on the strong documentary evidence presented by Mr. Umar Farouk, alongside the argument made by both plaintiff and defendant in the case.
“This honorable court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, based on the evidence before me.
“The court, hereby, orders the defendant to refund to the plaintiff the judgment sum of N3.794 million,” she said.
The Federal Housing Authority had denied that it reneged on any contractual obligation to Mr. Farouk, saying he was the one who failed to comply with the terms of the offer.
According to the agency’s counsel, Mr. Boniface Bassey, Farouk had presented two bank drafts to the defendant ”out of time” and so were never paid into the defendant’s account to date.
He said the plaintiff did not pay for the house within two weeks as stipulated in their condition of offer and so was not entitled to the house, and urged the court to dismiss his claims.