Livebridge Properties Refuses to Refund Buyer After Claiming ‘Contract Breach’

In November 2024, Ekow Francis (not his real name) believed he had found a good investment in Livebridge Properties. The company looked legitimate, had professional staff and a clear construction timeline.

Felix Williams, a sales agent for the company, convinced Francis to buy in. By December, Francis had paid N7.5 million for a four-bedroom penthouse plot (Plot 24) at Platinum Villa Estate, Sabon Lugbe, Abuja. In March, he paid another N500,000 for land excavation to prepare the site for building.

After payment, Livebridge gave him a contract that stated the duties of both parties, including what would happen in the case of a refund or contract termination. But clauses 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0 in the contract would later become a major source of disagreement.

From the contract FIJ reviewed, clause 8.0 and 9.0 reads

“The Purchaser agrees to move to site and commence development on the land immediately from the contract date.”

“Failure to comply with clause 8.0 within the stipulated period, you shall be automatically relocated to another location or estate, even outright revocation of the allocation. The Vendor hereby reserves the right to regain possession of the property, resell and refund after sale (less 10% handling charges, if such request for refund is made).”

Clause 10.0 adds:

“In the event that the purchaser requests to divest or be refunded, the purchaser is to exercise the right to seek refund by giving the company a written ninety (90) days’ notice of intention to seek refund, while the company reserves the right to refund within the space of 90 days from the date of written request, less 10% legal fees and administrative charges.”

Francis signed the contract. But after paying for excavation on March 10, he received his building plan and permission to build on March 14 with the bill of N7.6 million for DPC (foundation) construction before he could go to the site.

Worried about this bill, Francis asked Felix to help him set up a meeting with the company’s Managing Director (MD). The meeting never happened.

Per the contract, he knew he had to pay for DPC. What he did not know was that he would pay the sum at once. Francis did not have all the money and wanted to pay in installments.

Excavation was completed on March 18. The next day, a customer care agent called to warn him he was already in default because he had not proceeded to the site.

“She said I was in default for not starting work. I explained that excavation had just been completed and I had already asked to meet the MD to discuss the DPC bill. She ended the call, saying I would hear from them,” Francis said.

On March 26, Francis paid N1,272,000 as the first installment for the DPC. But this sum was rejected. He was told the MD rejected the payment and ordered a refund, saying he could only accept payment in two tranches.

Soon after, the Chief Operations Officer handed him a breach of contract letter.

The letter, titled “Breach of Terms & Condition of Sale of Plot at Platinum Villa Estate, Lugbe, Abuja”, said Francis had failed to start building on time, even though he had paid for and completed excavation just days earlier.

“Since payment of excavation of your plot and completion of your excavation, the company has waited for you to mobilize for your foundation work to commence but indications show you are not ready to commence work as we were made to believe,” the letter read.

It gave him seven days, until April 2, to start building or risk losing the plot. Francis believes the company ignored the fact that he had already begun the process and made a payment they refused to accept.

After the failed talks over payment, he submitted a formal request for a refund on March 28. The company did not respond — not even to acknowledge the letter — despite several follow-ups via phone calls and messages.

“I called again on June 25,” Francis said, “but the MD picked and told me I wouldn’t be refunded, calling me a defaulter.”

On July 2, his lawyer, Cue Law Firm, sent another refund request, which was also ignored. The company’s lawyers responded in the same month, claiming that “there has to be an irredeemable defect in the title to land” before a refund can be processed.

As far as the contract is concerned, however, there is no such clause. Francis is distressed about the company’s lack of response to his refund request. He is especially worried about the consequences of this refusal on his plans to finish his house within a defined timeframe.

FIJ contacted Felix Williams, the sales agent who handled Francis’ transaction, but he refused to speak on the matter.

“If you write an email, they should reply you. You know this is a matter between a company and a person. So you cannot involve me as an individual,” Felix told FIJ.

Responding to FIJ via WhatsApp on the evening of August 5, the company said that the issue was getting attention by the company lawyer and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).

“This line is a customer service line. It’s not a channel to respond to matters of this nature. we don’t respond to every issue, especially the one that is currently being handled by our law firm.”

According to the company, the customer had agreed to specific terms to commence work at a certain time but failed to meet his obligations. He made a deposit that was insufficient to begin foundation work, and the company chose to refund it.

The customer was formally informed of his breach through a letter and was verbally granted an extension by the managing director, who asked him to submit a proposal indicating a new date to begin work.

“But things were explained to him as he was written a letter to formally inform him of his breach, but at same time, was verbally granted an extension by our MD who personally engaged him, and asked him to write back the company proposing when he can commence work, the rest is all we are seeing today in different letters with several claims and allegations against our company. Instead of doing a proposal for extension of time to commence work, as granted him by the company.”, the response said.

FIJ had sent specific questions about the nature of the contract and the reason for the protracted refund in its inquiry. These questions were not addressed. The response provided through WhatsApp did not stray from Francis’ narration except for the company’s willingness to grant a concession.