SWAZI GASES WANTS E480 658 FROM APPLIED GAS

MBABANE - Swazi Gases (Pty) Ltd, trading as Air Liquide is demanding a sum of E480 658.38, from Applied Gas Swaziland (Pty) Ltd.

The plaintiff (Air Liquide) in its particulars of claim filed at the High Court, alleged that on June 27, 2018 at Nelspruit, South Africa it entered into a partially oral and partially written agreement of sale and delivery of goods and rental (right to use) of equipment.

This allegedly was done on the written terms and conditions as contained in the Applied Gas Swaziland (Pty) Ltd signed written application to Air Liquide for credit facilities.

During the meeting, the plaintiff claimed that it was represented by Bruno Schroeven and Applied Gas Swaziland (Pty) Ltd, being represented by Kenneth Prentice (second defendant).

Agreement

The alleged terms of the agreement that the two companies reportedly entered into are said to have included that Air Liquide would from time to time, at the specific instance and request of the first defendant, sell and deliver or rent goods to Applied Gas Swaziland (Pty) Ltd.
This was purportedly to be done at the plaintiff’s prevailing prices and charges from time to time alternatively as reasonable prices.

Air Liquide also alleged that both companies, through their representatives had agreed that payment of the goods thus sold or rented to the first defendant would be due and payable without deduction or off-set within 30 calendar days from the date of the invoice alternatively within a reasonable time.

 “All costs incurred in any action by the plaintiff against the first defendant in any competent court, including costs on the attorney/client scale and attorney’s collection commission, would be payable by the first defendant,” submitted Air Liquide.

These are allegations contained in the plaintiff’s particulars of claim whose veracity is still to be tested in court and the respondent is yet to file its detailed papers in the event it is disputing the claim against it.

Also, the plaintiff alleged that the pair had agreed that a certificate signed, inter alia by the secretary/ manager or any director/member of the credit reflecting the amount owing by Applied Gas Swaziland (Pty) Ltd to Air Liquide would be prima facie proof of the amount therein stated.

The plaintiff further claimed that contemporaneously and on or about June 27, 2018 while at Nelspruit, the second defendant executed a deed of suretyship in favour of Air Liquide and therein bound himself, in writing, as surety and co-principal debtor with the first defendant of all its obligations to the plaintiff.
Following this deed, Air Liquide alleged that the terms of the suretyship included that Prentice renounced the benefits of excussion, cession of action, division of debt and revision of accounts.

They allegedly also consisted that all costs incurred in any action by the plaintiff against the first defendant in any competent court, including costs on the attorney/client  scale attorneys collection commission, would be paid by him.

Resquest

“Pursuant to the agreement, Air Liquide performed fully in terms of the agreement and at the fist defendant’s instance and request, delivered and rented to the first defendant the goods and duly invoiced the Applied Gas Swaziland (Pty) Ltd in respect thereof,” Air Liquide submitted.

The plaintiff further alleged that at the time when the first defendant had become liable for payment to Air Liquide, failed to make payment in accordance with the agreement, and since August 2019 has made a payment of E10 000, leaving a balance of E480 658.38.

Air Liquide claimed that despite demand, both defendants had failed and or refused and or neglected to make due payment to it of the said outstanding balance which remained owing, due payable and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants.
The prayers of Air Liquide are that judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved for the payment of the sum of E480 658.38.

The plaintiff demanded that its compensation should incur an interest of 9 per cent per annum as from the dates of summons to date of final payment. The summons was filed on December 12, 2019.
 Air Liquide further sought that the costs of suit be incurred by the defendant.

In the event the defendants were disputing the claim, Applied Gas Swaziland (Pty) Ltd and Prentice were advised to within 10 days of receiving the summons to file their notice of intention to oppose and serve a copy thereof to the plaintiff.

Thereafter, the defendants were further advised that they should within 21 days after serving notice of intention to defend, file with the registrar of the High Court and serve upon the plaintiffs’ attorneys, a plea, and exception, notice to strike out with or without a counter-claim.

Air Liquide is represented by attorneys from Currie-Wright Attorneys.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: