Anjin-owned shopping mall, Longchen International Trade and Commerce, has been dragged to court by Radost Night Club, which is seeking $150 000 as compensation for loss of business.
BY CHARLES LAITON
The night club issued summons late last month, accusing the owners of Longchen Plaza in Belvedere of sabotaging the club’s business leading to heavy financial loss.
Radost Night Club, owned by a local engineer, said its business and restaurant at Longchen Plaza encountered a huge loss after officials brought in competitors at the complex, who occupied the same floor “generally, engendering an environment hostile to the operation and continuation of a profitable and sustainable business by plaintiff (Radost)”.
“As a consequence of the aforesaid wrongful acts, plaintiff suffered damages calculated in the sum of $150 000, being diminished business earnings and the subsequent loss of business and earnings after ceasing operations,” the night club said.
“Despite demand, the defendant (Longchen International) has failed, refused and/or neglected to compensate the plaintiff in the sum claimed or at all for the loss suffered. Plaintiff has been unnecessarily put out of pocket instituting this claim and, therefore, seeks an order for costs on the attorney and client scale.”
According to Radost Night Club, sometime in May 2013, it occupied shop 213 at Longchen. The club said with mall owner’s consent, it carried out extensive renovations of the warehouse, which was not suited for its business.
“Upon completion of the renovations, plaintiff then commenced a night club and restaurant business on the said portion, with the consent of the defendant, who gave plaintiff assurance that he would not allow any competing business to be carried out within a reasonable radius from plaintiff’s occupied portion,” the club said.
- 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
“Subsequently, in or about the year 2014, defendant took in or allowed a competing business trading under the name and style 1+1 Happy, to open adjacent to plaintiff’s business, thereby, significantly affecting and eventually causing the demise of plaintiff’s business.”
Radost said the two competing businesses were housed in a single hall separated only by a wall with the consequence that the sound system from the said competitor overwhelmed and could be heard loudly in its business, thereby, affecting its clientele.
“Parking space previously reserved for VIP patrons of plaintiff was appropriated to the competitor and plaintiff’s outside signage was obstructed by that of the competitor, who was allowed to use very bright neon lights,” Radost said. “Defendant also committed the following acts against the plaintiff which sabotaged, frustrated and haemorrhaged plaintiff’s business: Persistent switching-off of electricity supplies to plaintiff’s business premises particularly during peak times, which led to client fights, loss of perishables and also incapacitated plaintiff’s ability to serve cold beverages.”
Longchen is yet to respond to the lawsuit.
Radost owner, T Parehwa was earlier this year reported to have been sued by Longchen, giving further intrigue to the legal drama.
