By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Supreme Court judge has ordered that a real estate firm, co-founded by the Bahamas’ ambassador to Morocco, be named as a defendant in a $112,000 construction contract dispute.

Justice Simone Fitzcharles, in a February 24, 2025, ruling stipulated that Darville Wong Realty Ltd, one of whose co-founders is also a former Bahamas Real Estate Association (BREA), be added alongside two other parties as defendants against Lashan Butler’s claim that the agreement to construct her Killarney Shores subdivision home was breached.

The judge, who also ordered that Darville Construction and Property Management and Gregory Ndlovu also be joined to the action as defendants, described the relationship between the three and their alleged connections to Ms Butler’s property as akin to “a game played in shadow” in her written ruling.

William Wong, now The Bahamas’ emissary to Morocco and a former BREA president, denied that the real estate firm or himself had anything to do with construction of Ms Butler’s home or the ongoing litigation. “This has nothing to do with the partnership, Darville Wong Realty. I have nothing to do with no construction company, nothing at all,” he said when contacted by Tribune Business.

Chris Darville, Mr Wong’s business partner and co-founder of Darville Wong Realty Ltd, also initially denied knowledge of the legal battle and what it concerned. However, he later indicated he was aware of Ms Butler and her property, but seemed to lay all responsibility with Mr Ndlovu.

“I never went to court. It was all Gary [Gregory] and his attorney. I don’t know what this case is all about to tell you the truth. I have no idea what this case is all about,” Mr Darville said first. He then added: “I advanced the money to this lady because she couldn’t finish the property. She left the house sitting there, rotting down. It’s not our problem. Gary [Gregory] said the lawyer told him it was finished.”

However, Justice Fitzcharles also rejected Darville Wong Realty’s bid to strike out the claim as she paved the way for a trial on the substantive merits for the decade-old construction dispute. Darville Wong Realty and its attorney, Rouschard Martin, had argued that Ms Butler launched her claim against the wrong party because it was not involved in “any contractual dealings” with her.

Asserting that Ms Butler had admitted in her legal filings that all dealings were with another entity, Darville Construction and Property Management, they also claimed that the case was “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court”. An entity called Darville Wong Realty was named as the initial defendant in the action.

Ms Butler, though, held to her argument that the all parties “at all times held themselves out to the claimant as ‘Darville Wong Realty’”. And, arguing that her claim should not be struck out, she also asked the Supreme Court’s permission to change the defendants to Darville Wong Realty Ltd; Darville Construction and Property Management; and Gregory Ndlovu - something the judge has how agreed to.

“The claimant, Lashan Butler, seeks from the defendant damages in the sum of $112,000 and other reliefs for breach of a contract dated February 26, 2015, to construct a single family dwelling home on Lot number seven Killarney Shores subdivision on the island of New Providence,” justice Fitzcharles wrote in her verdict.

“The claimant alleges that Darville Wong Realty, doing business as Darville Construction and Property Management Ltd, entered into a contract with her to construct a dwelling house.. The contract price was $172,000, which was to be paid in stages by a mortgage loan taken out by the claimant.

“The work was estimated to be completed within 180 days from April 16, 2015, resulting in an estimated completion date of September 12, 2015.” That, though, was not achieved and construction dragged on for more than two years.

“The claimant pleaded that, throughout the course of the work under the construction agreement, the defendant was gravely behind its agreed timelines and the claimant faced the possibility that the loan provider would withdraw the loan facility,” justice Fitzcharles added. “The construction work proceeded well beyond the 180-day estimated timeline into 2017.

“The claimant then alleges that, in or about early July 2017, she was told by a representative of the defendant, Gregory Ndlovu, that they were unable to complete the work. As a result of the claimant’s retention of an appraiser to assess the progress of the work and cost to complete, she pleaded that on July 17, 2017, she learned the defendant negligently and in breach of contract carried out defective work and failed to complete works after having been paid for it.”

Ms Butler alleged that “overall only 85 percent of the work was completed in the contract”, and she begged Darville Wong Realty “to no avail” to fulfill its contractual obligations. Claiming that “she suffered a loss of materials and was left with the defendant’s defective work”, Ms Butler also claimed she was contacted in writing by Mr Ndlovu on November 1, 2017.

Purporting to write on behalf of Darville Construction & Property Management, he said neither the company nor its partners would “be affiliated” with the project any longer. Ms Butler is suing over her alleged loss from “repudiation” of the construction contract, but on December 21, 2021, Darville Wong Realty filed a defence alleging she was responsible for the delays with the project.

And it also counter-claimed for $34,400 allegedly owed for work on the project, while seeking a further “$17,200 and $6,800 for “loss of opportunity” and “loss of retention fee” respectively. Darville Wong Realty also denied it did business as Darville Construction & Property Management, as the construction agreement was “accepted and executed” under the name of Darville Wong Realty. And it denied Mr Ndlovu was its agent.

Ms Butler, in her evidence, said correspondence from the contractor use “the logo” of Darville Wong Realty, while stage payments made by the mortgage lender, FINCO, “were made out to Darville Wong Realty”. Justice Fitzcharles, in her verdict, said it was clear that the construction contract was entered into by persons “using a single trade name, Darville Wong Realty”.

And she pointed out that Darville Wong Realty, having appeared and entered a defence and counter-claim, was now precluded by the former Supreme Court rules - in force when the action was started in 2021 - from seeking to strike the claim out. She described the firm’s relationship to Ms Butler, and with the other entities involved, as resembling “a game played in shadow”.

Justice Fitzcharles also noted that Darville Wong Realty in its court filings admitted that Ms Butler had paid for four stages of the construction agreement, worth a combined 65 percent of the full $172,000 payment. “Some person or entity using the trade name Darville Wong Realty entered into the construction contract with Lashan Butler,” the judge added, asserting they both carried out work and received FINCO payments.

Finding that the claim deserves to go to a full trial, and should not be struck out, justice Fitzcharles found that “joining those who have participated in the construction agreement is preferable and outweighs dismissing the claimant’s case or refusing to add appropriate or necessary parties”.