Sakunda Holdings was yesterday ordered to pay engineering firm, Arup Zimbabwe, over $200 000 for services it rendered to the controversial Dema Power Project.
BY CHARLES LAITON
In its application for a default judgment placed before High Court judge, Justice Priscilla Chigumba, the engineering company accused Sakunda Holdings of reneging on a contract signed in May last year.
According to Arup, the contract included, among other things, that it would provide certain services in connection with the construction and operation of a 200-megawatt emergency power station at Dema.
The company also said the contract required that Sakunda would, within 30 days of being presented with invoices, pay for the services rendered at agreed rates.
Apart from paying the fees, Sakunda would also be obliged to reimburse Arup Zimbabwe certain expenses incurred during the discharge of its obligations.
“Pursuant to the aforesaid contract, plaintiff (Arup) rendered its services to the defendant (Sakunda) during the period stretching from February to July 2016,” Arup Zimbabwe said in its declaration.
“On June 16, July 14 and August 12, 2016, the plaintiff presented the defendant with invoices in respect of the services that had been rendered in terms of the aforesaid contract … the defendant has failed and/or neglected to pay the services notwithstanding that the 30-day period within which each of those invoices ought to have been settled has expired.”
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Upon being presented with the summons in October this year, Sakunda Holdings did not enter an appearance to defend notice, prompting Arup to approach the court seeking a default judgment, which Justice Chigumba granted.
Before being granted the judgment, Arup’s administration associate, Nicolette Wallace, had also submitted a supporting affidavit, urging the court to rule in her firm’s favour.
“The defendant does not oppose the plaintiff’s claim, as demonstrated by its failure to file a notice of appearance to defend in terms of the rules of this court. I aver that the non-opposition of the plaintiff’s claim by defendant is understandable in view of the fact that there is no perceivable defence that the defendant could have raised against the claim in question,” Wallace said.
