“We were clear that we wanted to view the house when it was vacant before paying the balance,” Eunice told the court. Concerned about the safety of the house, Eunice said they engaged a structural engineer, who later prepared a report indicating that the building’s structural integrity had been compromised. No refund was forthcoming, she claimed, and the property was subsequently put back on sale, prompting Eunice to seek assistance from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI). During cross-examination, the defence challenged the complainant’s testimony, citing inconsistencies in the stated purchase price and the amounts allegedly paid. The defence further maintained that the complainant was granted access to the house, disputing claims that inspection was denied.

Source: The Star January 19, 2026 15:26 UTC