Madam Bendu Fatumatta Dukuly, 70, claims that she has been finding it very difficult to have the Indian Consulate General to Liberia, Upjit Singh Sachdeva (Jeety) reach a compromise for the implementation of a Supreme Court judgment in 2015.
The Court’s judgment denied Madam Dukuly’s request for a “Cancellation of Lease Agreement for Fraud” against Upjit Singh Sachdeva.
Madam Dukuly’s lawsuit by then also included another Indian businessman Raspal, the general manager of Sethi Brothers Incorporated.
The property at the center of the dispute is a story building and a lot situated in Mamba Point, Monrovia.
According to Madame Dukuly, Jetty’s unwillingness to enter negotiations was revealed by his no show at a scheduled meeting on February 5, 2019 as requested by her lawyer, Cllr. Benedict Sannoh, in a letter dated January 16, 2019.
In that letter Sannoh added, ”we have been retained by Mrs. Bendu Fatumatta Dukuly, to protect her legal interest in relation to her property located at Mamba Point in Monrovia after her attempts to have the lease agreement, which was executed in your name and canceled for fraud.
“As you are quite aware, the final judgment of the Civil Law Court ‘A,’ dismissing her petition was confirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court not on the merits of the case but on procedural grounds occasioned by her counsels’ failure to perfect her appeal.”
This being the case, Sannoh added, “Mrs. Dukuly was left with very few other options, and she has decided to otherwise enforce the lease agreement according to its term and conditions. It is in this regard that we are writing this letter.”
Further, according to the letter, “a review of the lease agreement shows that you undertook, in addition to make periodic rental payments, to construct a story building and to keep the property in good and tenable condition.”
Accordingly, the letter noted, ”we hereby invite you to a meeting at our office scheduled for Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 4:p.m. to discuss outstanding issues related to the lease and to forge ways and means to rejuvenate the landlord and tenant relationship that ought to exist between both of you.”
In conclusion, the letter said, “we would also like to give you notice on behalf of Madam Dukuly that following the meeting as scheduled she would like to inspect the property subject of the lease.”
However, Mr. Sachdeva’s spokesman told the Daily Observer on Tuesday, February 12 via phone o conversation that he was indisposed.
“He just returned from a trip outside Liberia and, therefore, he had no intent to refuse any discussion as requested by Madam Dukuly, and that he would respond to her request appropriately in the interest of both parties,” the spokesman said.
Though the Supreme Court restricted Madam Dukuly from having access to her property in the absence of Jetty, she claimed that she had credible information that her property is in a very deplorable condition, a claim that Mr. Sachdeve’s spokesman has denied.
In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld a 2013 ruling of the Civil Law Court ‘A’ at the Temple of Justice, which Madam Dukuly’s lawyers rejected and announced an appeal before the Full Bench.
In that decision, the High Court said after announcing her appeal, Madam Dukuly’s lawyers failed to follow the process, meaning they did not file her appeal bond and a notice of completion of the appeal for the justices to look into the matter.
In was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment that Madam Dukuly’s legal team headed by Cllr. Benedict F. Sannoh wrote Upjit Singh Sachdeve for a meeting to actualize the court’s decision.
The case started on September 21, 2012, when Madam Dukuly filed before the Civil Law Court, a petition for “Cancellation of Lease Agreement for Fraud” against the two Indian businessmen Raspal, general manager of Sethi Brothers Incorporated and Upjit Singh Sachdeve.
In her complaint, Madam Dukuly alleged that early 2012, she became very ill and needed to undergo surgery abroad, but in an attempt to raise funds, decided to lease her property for 25 years and secure payment for the first five years in order to cover traveling, hotel and medical expenses.
After leasing the property, she later realized that Raspal had sub-leased it to Jeety, to whom she claimed she had earlier refused to lease her property, contending that the Sethi Brothers general manager deceived her. However, she did not go into details about the deception, but defense lawyers argued that there was no deception or fraud in the implementation of the agreement.
They contended that Madam Dukuly and Raspal agreed for the manager of Sethi Brothers to sub-lease the property to any of his relatives, and this was exactly what he did.
They also argued that Jeety is Raspal’s uncle, who insisted on the continuation of their agreement since they had paid for five of the 25 years as agreed upon.