Agreement of SaleSubdivision PermitCancellation of ContractRegional Town and Country Planning Act
Tags
Property LawContract LawReal Estate
legislation
Statutes Cited
Regional, Town and Country Planning Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in dismissing the matter on a point of law which was not pleaded","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Court raised illegality issue suo motu"}
{"issue_text":"Whether a subdivision permit existed at the time the agreement of sale was concluded","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Permit reference BYO/METRO/04/10 indicates 2010 issuance"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Appellant company sold immovable property to respondent under agreement of sale dated 2011. Respondent fell into arrears of US$22,950. Appellant sought cancellation of agreement and ejectment. Magistrates Court dismissed claim holding agreement illegal for want of subdivision permit. High Court on appeal found subdivision permit existed since 2010.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases