K5 v Akfinans Bank | Confused of Karsiyaka


As I patiently wait to find out if my villa is going to be treated in exactly the same way as my fellow K5 litigants my mind turns to all sort of thoughts.

Since I am a litigant in the same case as 8 other owners, I cannot get to grips with how the judgment could be interpreted to treat me differently. We all share the same case, so we all should be treated the same. To have a different judgment would surely involve me in being in a different case?

I am now beginning to wonder why I was ever allowed to join the case ? I truly hope it was not to share the costs with the others even though there really was nothing in it for me.

I would need to see, in writing, where the judge excludes me from this judgment of the 4th December 2014.

The same Judge was quite clear in his judgment of the 26th August 2011 when he refused us the Interim Injunction BUT also refused the request by Akfinans Bank Limited that I be excluded from the case.

I have included a copy which is easily obtained online – Judge Usar’s Decision of 26th August 2011

What really confuses me is that if we win the Appeal, why would we need further cases. In my opinion it would uphold the decision of Judge Usar that the mortgages on our property were fraudulent and thus should remove us from the equation since then the matter should be between the bank and their borrowers, which we certainly were not.

Yes of course the Kocans would appear to be in the name of the land owner, but surely the fact that we all registered our Contracts of Sale, this should put our villas outside anything that could be claimed by the bank. The only villas left to claim would be those given by the builder to the landowner in payment for the land. In fact, the villas that should have been used in the first instance.

My villa should not be available for this purpose in line with the rest of the litigants. If this is not so, why have I been allowed in the case? Am I being treated equally and fairly?

Never give in never give up

Pauline Read

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments to K5 v Akfinans Bank | Confused of Karsiyaka

  • fluter

    Isn’t your lawyer doing anything about it? If not, why not?

    Answers on a plain postcard……..

    Could be the sulkers are still getting their way.

  • cyprusishome

    Nice one fluter, fell off chair laughing!!!!

  • Polly Marples

    The lawyer ( Advocate ) for K5 is the one telling Pauline hers is ‘different’ I personally think he should try to change Pauline’s into the same Kocans as the other litigants and if the Tapu refuse, he should see the Judge who gave the judgment in chambers and explain the Tapu are not honouring his judgement.

    So the short answer is yes the lawyer knows, and no Pauline is NOT happy about this.

    She feels very cheated.

  • fluter

    Maybe he is doing as he is told. Situation normal, we can forget logic.

  • Polly Marples

    S/he pays the piper calls the tune, hope the piper is not double dipping.