Home | Business | TIMBER PRODUCTS, SNTC AT IT AGAIN

TIMBER PRODUCTS, SNTC AT IT AGAIN

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

 MBABANE – It is not over! The fight over the cancellation of a  contract between Timber Product Management Services Propreriatary Limited and Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) is far from over.


Timber Product Management Services Proprietary Limited has again instituted legal proceedings after the arbitrator ruled in favour of SNTC.
The arbitrator was senior lawyer Zweli Jele, who found that SNTC was entitled to conclude that the cancellation had been accepted.
Jele has been cited as the second respondent in the matter.


Review


The company wants the court to review and set aside Jele’s decision, handed down on December 19, 2018.
The genesis of the matter is that on or about June 26, 2006 SNTC and the applicant (Timber Product Management Services Proprietary Limited entered into an agreement.


According to the applicant, the material terms of the agreement were that; SNTC would sell to the company certain gum trees situated at Mantenga Nature Reserve growing on an area measuring a total area of 146 hectares.
In consideration of the sale of the gum trees by the respondent (SNTC) to the applicant, the latter   would pay to the respondent an amount of E370 000. It was also alleged the terms of the agreement were that the applicant would commence felling the trees within 60 days of signature of the agreement.
These are allegations contained in an affidavit whose veracity is still to be tested in court and SNTC is yet to file its papers in the event it is opposing the application.


Agreement


According to the purported agreement annexed to the court papers, the company was to begin an operation that was, felling the trees, after furnishing respondent with an approved Environmental Assessment and Environmental Certificate or a notice to issue an Environmental Certificate from the Eswatini Environmental Authority.


The balance of the purchase price was reportedly to be settled by instalments of E40 000 at four month intervals.
Other terms of the agreement were that; applicant was to pay a deposit of 50 per cent of the purchase prices and that the final payment was to be made upon the harvesting and transportation.


Paid


The applicant submitted that it paid SNTC an amount of E150 00 as deposit as envisaged in the agreement.  According to the applicant, although this was not 50 per cent of the purchase price, SNTC accepted it.


According to the Director of the company, Sandile Sibeko, the applicant was unable to begin felling the trees in terms of the agreement on account of the fact that the Eswatini Environmental Authority had not issued the Environmental Assessment and Environmental Compliance Certificate.


Issued


Sibeko asserted that the certificates were eventually issued by the authority on October 12, 2006 way after the 60-day period had lapsed.
“This is an eventuality that neither of the parties had anticipated. Further to this, when the certificates were eventually issued by the Eswatini Environmental Authority, the rainy season had resumed making it untenable for the applicant to begin operations.


He averred that none of these facts rendered the agreement between the parties invalid.
He submitted that when his company wanted to begin the operations in terms of the agreement, SNTC allegedly prevented them from doing so and sought to re-negotiate the terms of the agreement.


The director pointed out that his company refused to renegotiate the agreement but insisted that the agreement be performed.
Sibeko informed the court that SNTC allegedly sought to resile from the agreement by attempting to reimburse the deposit paid by the company.

 

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

: Masta 900
Should Masta 900 be regulated or banned?