BUSINESSMAN DEMANDS E68 900 FROM EEC MAN

MBABANE – A businessman is demanding compensation from his business partner, who is also an employee of the Eswatini Electricity Company (EEC) of E68 900.

Malungelo Mhlanga of Mkhuzweni in the Manzini Region in his particulars of claim alleged that at the beginning of June 2017, he entered into a business deal, wherein he bought 50 per cent of the shareholding of Lucky Malima’s company (EBOMA Electrical (Pty) Ltd).
Malima (defendant) is employed by EEC.

Mhlanga (plaintiff) claimed that the company was already in existence and was sub-contracting to EEC when the business deal was completed by the duo.
During the purported meeting by the pair, Mhlanga alleged that they both represented themselves and they purportedly entered into material terms of the oral agreement that said Mhlanga would pay E80 000 to the defendant for purchasing the 50 per cent shares of EBOMA Electrical (Pty) Ltd.
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.

Mhlanga further claimed that they had agreed that after the payment of the E80 000 to Malima, he (Mhlanga) would supervise the daily operations of the company. The plaintiff also alleged that they agreed to share equally the dividends of the company on monthly basis.
“Plaintiff performed all his obligations in terms of the oral agreement in that he paid the agreed sum of E80 000 to the defendant on June 12, 2017 by depositing it to the latter’s personal bank account,” reads in part Mhlanga’s submissions.

obligations

Following this transaction, Mhlanga claimed that Malima did not meet his contractual obligations in that he neither allowed the plaintiff to supervise EBOMA Electrical (Pty) Ltd, nor did he share the dividends of the business with him.
He alleged that at the beginning of September 2017 after he had paid the E80 000 to the bank account of the defendant, he discovered that Malima was neither one of the shareholders nor a director of EBOMA Electrical (Pty) Ltd.

Mhlanga claimed that  Malima therefore fraudulently misrepresented himself to the plaintiff that he (defendant) was the sole shareholder of the aforesaid company knowing very well that same was not true or correct in order to induce him (plaintiff) to pay the sum of E80 000.
“The defendant was induced by the defendant’s representation aforesaid and paid the sum of E80 000 to him whereas if he had known the true facts, he would not have entered into the fraudulent agreement nor paid the amount at all,” Mhlanga alleged.

Mhlanga further submitted that as a result of the purported misrepresentation by the defendant, he cancelled the verbal agreement entered into by the parties as it was null and void and thereby he  was entitled to a refund.
The plaintiff further claimed that subsequent to the cancellation of the oral agreement by him at the beginning of September 2017, they both met in Manzini and Malima agreed to refund him the sum of E80 000 in full by September 30, 2017.

repaid

Furthermore, he alleged that contrary to the agreement to pay in full the money owed to the plaintiff at the aforementioned date, the defendant had so far repaid the sum of E11 100 to him which he (defendant) did on different dates.

Mhlanga claimed that in June 2018, the defendant paid him E1 000 followed by E2 100 in August 2018. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant further paid him E4 000 at the end of May 2019 and the same amount at the end of July 2019. He alleged that the amount that remained owed to him by Malima was the sum of E68 900 and it was now overdue, owing and or payable by the defendant to him.

Mhlanga claimed that despite numerous demands, Malima had failed, refused and or neglected to make payment in full. The plaintiff is demanding the payment of the aforementioned amount and that its compensation should incur an interest of 9 per cent per annum.

Mhlanga further sought that the costs of suit be incurred by the defendant. In the event the defendant was disputing the claim, Mhlanga was advised to within 10 days of receiving the summons file their notice of intention to oppose and serve a copy thereof to the plaintiff.

Thereafter, the defendant was further advised that he 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.
Mhlanga is represented by attorneys from Madzinane Attorneys.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: