×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Sakunda Energy sues council over fuel debt

News
Sakunda Energy (Pvt) Ltd has taken Harare City Council to court over non-payment of $117 290 for fuel supplied since 2014.

Sakunda Energy (Pvt) Ltd has taken Harare City Council to court over non-payment of $117 290 for fuel supplied since 2014. BY CHARLES LAITON

The fuel company issued the summons on October 10 this year and the council has entered notice to challenge the claim.

Through its lawyers Mawere Sibanda Legal Practitioners, Sakunda said in 2014, it entered into an oral agreement with the City of Harare in terms of which it would supply diesel and petrol to council on credit.

“The material terms of the said agreement are inter alia; that plaintiff would supply defendant with diesel and petrol at its specific instance and request, that defendant would pay plaintiff for the diesel and petrol fuel within a period of 30 days upon delivery,” Sakunda said.

In compliance with the terms of the agreement, Sakunda supplied diesel and petrol on various occasions, but the council allegedly reneged on its promise to pay, prompting the firm to approach the court for recourse.

“In breach of the agreement, the defendant did not pay plaintiff in full for the delivered diesel and petrol fuel. As a result of the aforesaid breach, defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $117 290,15 being the outstanding amount in terms of the diesel and petrol fuel agreement. The outstanding sum is accruing interest at the prescribed rate of 5% per annum calculated from the date of service of summons to the date of payment in full,” Sakunda said.

“Despite demand, defendant had failed, neglected and/or refused to settle its indebtedness to plaintiff. But for the defendant’s failure to settle this clearly outstanding debt, plaintiff would not have been put out of pocket having to institute these unnecessary proceedings. Only an order of costs on a higher scale can justly compensate the plaintiff.”