After 10 years, a legal struggle involving a Coquitlam property isn’t over yet.
In 2013, Chris Akomas sued Rosemary Azu for $646,902 in connection with a Hampton Drive property.
Akomas said he loaned Azu $400,000 to buy the Westwood Plateau house and do some improvements. He also claimed Azu agreed to repay him his money as well as 60 percent of the net profit from the sale of the house.
Local news that matters to you
No one covers the Tri-Cities like we do. But we need your help to keep our community journalism sustainable.
Besides the initial sum, Akomas said he loaned Azu $6,022 per month for the mortgage payments and property taxes.
Despite numerous requests, “Azu has neither sold the Property nor paid back the loan,” according to Akomas.
Azu disputed that claim, denying ever entering into a loan agreement with Akomas.
Azu contends that in March 2009, Akomas “instructed her to either purchase or rent a home in Coquitlam for him.”
Azu said she bought the Westwood Plateau property in June 2009, paying $1.13 million. Following the sale, Azu said the house has been occupied by Akomas, his family and employees.
Over five years, Azu said she spent $637,999 on Akomas’ behalf and he repaid her only $546,696.
Delay dismissal dismissed
Citing what she called: “Akomas’ inexcusable, inordinate delay in prosecuting his claim,” Azu moved for dismissal.
From the beginning of litigation, Akomas hasn’t lived in Canada and has relied on his son to help with the case. The defense attributed the delay to previous counsel, as well as the “significant competing responsibilities” of Akomas’ son, Alozie Chiedoziem Chris Akomas.
While the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, Justice Trevor Armstrong ruled the delay was not prejudicial.
“There is no suggestion by the defendant that memory has faded, that witnesses have disappeared, or that physical evidence has been lost or destroyed,” Armstrong wrote. “It must be remembered that dismissals for want of prosecution are Draconian orders and should not be made lightly.”
Akomas should be “allowed to proceed as expeditiously as possible to trial,” Armstrong concluded.
The application to dismiss the action was dismissed.
The trial continues.