K5 v Akfinans Bank | Not Important Enough For Cyprus Today

K5 v Akfinans Bank - Not Important Enough For Cyprus TodayWITHOUT PREJUDICE

K5 v Akfinans Bank – Not Important Enough For Cyprus Today

I have been waiting for Cyprus Today to report on the events in court on the 8th, 9th and 10th September before covering the case in more detail for NCFP. It seems I waited in vain and that this case was either not important enough to make this English language paper Saturday’s edition, or they still are wary of offending the bank. I think a straw poll of those who do buy this newspaper will reveal they are predominately British and they would be interested in a court case that could cost fellow Brits their homes, ergo their life’s savings.

It seems the case resumed on the 8th with Mr M. Kader in the witness box again, a continuation of the evidence gathering from him by the bank’s advocate Mr. Akan Kursat.

The next witness for the defence was Mr. Kudret Seizinler described as the Director of Kyrenia branch of Akfinans Bank Limited. I personally have never met or even heard of this man before and I would be surprised if any other member of K5 has either.

Then came the surprise. A member of staff from the Tapu (Land Registry) whose name I have not been given, allegedly gave evidence to the effect that they had contacted all K5 owners to tell them their Contracts were invalid in 2008 due to the absence of the landowner’s signature. However it seems that there was no record at the Land Registry of this notification and the representative of the Land Registry could give no explanation for this omission.

The bank’s advocate also allegedly was adamant that when the loan was given in 2004, yes 2004 I am told, there were no properties on the land. Strange that the charges should appear on the land registry search as March 2005 £1,600 and November 2005 as the larger lira loan. Also very strange that the leaked survey dated 28th March 2005 commissioned by the bank should show building of substantial value on the K5 site. Why are they now saying the loan was in 2004?

It seems that they are now relying on the fact that they claim the Contracts were invalid and K5 knew since 2008 and/or the loan was given at a time when the land was bare. Well I have the landowner’s signature on my Contract of Sale, in big bold handwriting. I of course cannot speak for any other purchaser. I also have a copy of the search showing when the charges were put on the site in March 2005 and November 2005. Our legal representative cross examined the above witnesses but sadly I have no record of what was said.

I was not called as a witness. I have no record of whether Boysa Boyra was present at the hearing.

The rest of my previous report is correct in that after receiving a written summary of the opposing sides cases within the next 15 days the Judge will then deliberate and give his judgement later in the year.

Pauline Read

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.