Blythdale Mining sues supplier for $26K

BULAWAYO-BASED mining company, Blythdale Mining Services, has approached the High Court seeking an order compelling Kwekwe-based Sheafta Mining to reimburse it for equipment which the latter failed to supply.

BY SILAS NKALA

In its declaration of the claim, Blythdale Mining submitted that on July 11 2017, the parties entered into a purchase and supply agreement of mining equipment and installation thereof, but Sheafta allegedly breached the contract after receiving advance payment of $26 240.

“The plaintiff’s claim against defendant is for payment of $26 240, 5 being refund for over payment done to the defendant in respect of installation fee in terms of the parties agreement dated July 11 2018.

“Payment of the sum of $39 995, 10 being refund for back up fee which back up the defendant did not provide and was paid for by the plaintiff. Payment of the sum of $65 000 being damages and penalty fee for failure to deliver the material within 150 days after the payment of deposit in full. Interest at tempore morae and cost of suit on a higher scale,” the summons read.

“In terms of the agreement, the defendant undertook to deliver the consignment within 150 days of being paid the full purchase price. The parties further agreed that 1% penalty interest will be imposed in the event that the defendant fails to deliver the mining equipment within the 150 days referred above.

“The defendant breached the parties’ agreement and failed to supply the mining equipment in question and within the time stipulated. In view of the above the plaintiff claim $65 000 being damages for unlawful breach and penalty, further to the above the plaintiff claim $26 240, 50 being refund for an over payment done to the defendant in that the defendant was supposed to be paid $73 747, 25 being 25% of installation costs instead the defendant was paid $99 987, 75.

“The defendant was entitled to 15% installation fee but it proceeded to charge 15% of $399 8951 which included front end loader and excavator which are not part and parcel of installation as agreed. The 15% was supposed to be charged only from $294 989 which amount constitute the installation equipment costs.”

The defendant is yet to respond to the summons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *