Baby glow disregard all the stupid comments of some people, u aint the last one holding out for the right person. I'm 30, but I don't care what people say. where I am today they can never be again but if I chose to I can be where they are, so keep ur chin up nd put your trust in God to bring the right man for you.

B was evicted in 1995 from his 3bedroom office apartment by A,The landlord to the premises for default of rent.A died in 1996 and C,one of A's  beneficiary gave the property to D another tenant who used the premises for similar purpose as B(the evicted tenant).D stayed in the premises for years but was evicted by court order in 2011.while the eviction was ongoing B(tenant evicted years earlier)showed up to appeal that he had a few personal belongings on the premises which he showed to C,(the said property include old family albums,vehicle wheel cover,a stove and kettle) and he should be allowed to return for them in a week.His request was granted and he was specifically informed by C(beneficiary to the estate) to come for his belongings in a few days when C who was planning to embark on a journey returned.
C's sister moved into the premises and wanted to use the place as a food processing company and the need to clear the place arouse.She contacted her lawyer who wrote to D(the tenant evicted in 2011) to return and  remove heavy equipments that could not be removed during eviction.
D complied and removed only one of 4 heavy equipments on the premises.
D now informed the beneficiaries that the other equipments belonged to B(tenant evicted in 1995).Beneficiaries ordered that the machines be removed but as soon as one of the machines was removed ,the police came and arrested C's sister for vandalism and stealing etc.C notified his lawyer on the development and his lawyer insisted that B should  seek redress in court if he felt he had any grievance. NO action was filed and parties maintained peace until 2015 when the ministry of environment visited the premises (which was littered with  24 used vehicle tyres that agents of B had thrown on the machines so as to hold the trampolines used to cover the machines) and demanded that the machines which had been moved from the compound to the front of the apartment be removed as it constituted a nuisance.
C ordered a removal and
Paid for the evacuation but the action was halted by the police as soon as one machine was moved.B now claims to have the permission of C to be one the premises and demands payment for his displaced equipments.Advice C on how to resolve the matter as he has approached you to sue B on his behalf .