Home | Business | MULTILOG’S E1.1M ‘CONTRACT BREACH’ HEADACHE

MULTILOG’S E1.1M ‘CONTRACT BREACH’ HEADACHE

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE – It’s a business deal gone sour between two Pigg’s Peak based companies. Demara Plant Swaziland (PTY) is demanding over E1.1 million from Multilog Harvesting (PTY) Limited, for an alleged breach of contract.


Multilog Harvesting (PTY) Limited is situated in Rocklands, Pigg’s Peak while Damara Plant Swaziland (PTY) Limited is based along Balegane Road, also within the small town. Demara Plant Swaziland, through its attorney, has instituted legal proceedings against Multilog Harvesting where it is demanding E1 113 426.44. Bhekinkosi Mdluli, who was an employee of Multilog Harvesting (PTY) Limited, is the second defendant.


In its particulars of claim, the plaintiff (Demara Plant Swaziland (PTY) Limited) submitted that during or about the period of August 2016 to December 2017, it entered into a series of oral agreements of rental of plant and repairs with the first defendant (Multilog Harvesting). In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff allegedly hired to the first defendant at reasonable prices, certain plant and equipment. The oral agreement of sale, according to the plaintiff, was concluded in Swaziland.
The plaintiff went on to allege that the plant and equipment and services were duly delivered to the first respondent on or about the date of each invoice.


“Notwithstanding the lapse of 30 days from the date of the plaintiff’s delivery, a reasonable time after the delivery and demand, the first defendant has failed to make payments of such sums to the plaintiff,” reads part of the particulars of claim filed by the plaintiff at the High Court. These are allegations contained in particulars of claim whose veracity is still to be tested in court, and the defendants are yet to file their papers in the event they are opposing the claim. According to the plaintiff, the balance of the said hiring and services rendered amounts to E1 113 426. It argued that the first defendant was liable to make payment of the abovementioned amount.

or plant and equipment hire.  The plaintiff claimed that it accepted such application. In accepting the application, the plaintiff was represented by its credit manager. “It was accordingly agreed between the plaintiff and the first defendant that the plaintiff would from time to time hire plant and equipment to the first defendant,” submitted the plaintiff.


The following were allegedly, some of the express or implied tacit terms of the agreement: The agreement would govern all future contractual relationships and hires between the hirer and the owner, and was applicable to all existing and debts owed to the owner by the hirer; the hirer would hire plant and equipment from the owner; the hire period would be completed when the equipment was returned to the plaintiff. It was also one of the terms of the agreement that, in the event the hirer breached the agreement, the owner would be entitled to inter alia, terminate the agreement, repossess the equipment and institute legal action and claim payment of attorney, collection commission, tracing charges and interest at the maximum permissible rate in terms of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005.


The matter is pending in court and appearing for the plaintiff are lawyers from Currie – Wright Associates in Mbabane.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: