Benin: the GCITT ordered to deliver three villas paid for several years ago.

The Société générale du commerce, de l’industrie, du transport et de travaux (GCITT SA) was ordered to deliver three villas to Irma Rosemonde Ligan, Alice Mahougbé Ligan, and Guy Daniel Ligan. The decision was made on July 2, 2026, by the First Chamber of the Second Section of the Commercial Court of Cotonou.

The court granted the real estate company one month, starting from the ruling, to deliver homes that comply with the signed contracts to the buyers. After this period, GCITT will have to pay a penalty of 200,000 FCFA for each day of delay for each home that is not delivered.

The court also dismissed the company’s request for contract termination and stipulated provisional execution of its decision. GCITT was also ordered to pay the legal costs.

This case involves reservation contracts made for the construction of three buildings, two of type F4 and one of type F3. The agreed prices were 15 million FCFA for Irma Rosemonde Ligan, 10.25 million FCFA for Alice Mahougbé Ligan, and 15,849,240 FCFA for Guy Daniel Ligan.

According to the plaintiffs, the purchase prices had been fully paid, but the homes had never been delivered under the terms specified in the contracts. They claimed to have noted significant defects during the construction and had repeatedly requested their correction.

They argued that the work should have been completed and the homes delivered since 2013. Despite their amicable efforts, GCITT had allegedly not made the necessary repairs before asking them to cover the repair costs themselves.

The GCITT’s request for contract termination dismissed

In response, GCITT claimed that the villas were completed in December 2013 and were ready for delivery at that time. The company accused the buyers of not adhering to the payment schedules and only coming forward several years later to demand the homes.

The company indicated that a total balance of 7,298,440 FCFA was initially owed. According to them, the buyers only settled their accounts in 2022, several years after the alleged completion of the constructions.

GCITT consequently requested the court to acknowledge the automatic termination of the contracts. They proposed to resell the villas to other buyers and then return the amounts paid by the Ligan family after deducting processing fees and a penalty of 10% of the payments made.

The court did not follow this line of reasoning. It noted that the contractual clauses allowed termination only when the reservist refused to sign the delivery minutes or pay the balance of the price, after a reminder letter remained unanswered for 30 days.

However, the judges found that each buyer had fully paid the price of their villa. They also determined that GCITT had not demonstrated that the constructions had been carried out according to the contractual stipulations or that the plaintiffs had refused to sign a delivery minutes.

For the court, the acceptance of the homes could not occur as long as the reservations raised by the buyers had not been lifted. The necessary conditions for the termination of the contracts not being met, GCITT’s request was dismissed.

The court also found that no delivery minutes had been submitted for the signature of the three buyers. GCITT also failed to provide evidence of the condition of the homes by the expiration of the initially scheduled deadline for their completion.

According to the judgment, the villas currently present defects that the company did not contest. Their condition therefore does not allow for a delivery in accordance with the contractual commitments.

The court placed the responsibility for repairing these defects solely on GCITT. It then ordered them to deliver the three homes within one month, under a penalty of 200,000 FCFA for each day of delay and for each undelivered home.

The buyers initially requested a penalty of one million FCFA for each day of delay for each villa. The court reduced this amount to 200,000 FCFA.

The judges also accepted the provisional execution of the decision, considering it urgent for the plaintiffs to be able to take possession of the fully paid homes. However, they refused the execution “on the minute” due to a lack of evidence of imminent danger or a situation of extreme necessity.