Home | Business | SOLE TRADER SUES OVER DAMAGED COMPLEX

SOLE TRADER SUES OVER DAMAGED COMPLEX

03/03/2021 07:50:00 BY ASHMOND NZIMA

Font size:

MBABANE – Ngub’s Investments (Pty) Ltd trading as Ngub’s Delight has been taken to court over damages to a complex.

Nomsa Mamba, a Siphofaneni-based sole trader trading under the TRG Properties banner wants compensation for damages that reportedly happened in her complex. In the court application, Mamba averred that an accident happened in her complex in Siphofaneni where a truck, a freight liner combination of motor vehicles, reportedly owned by the first respondent (Ngub’s Delight) and driven by Machawe Vilakati, crashed into the property and damaged it. The latter has been cited as both the second respondent and employee of Ngub’s Investments in the matter.

Pursuant to the accident, the first respondent allegedly came to the complex and met the complainant in a bid to try and negotiate a way forward on how they would repair the complex with immediate effect. “I had complained to them that their truck had damaged, inter alia, a staircase that is fundamental to my business because it is the only route used by my tenants who occupy the building upstairs. As a result, I implored them that they fix the staircase with immediate effect lest I will lose tenants,” Mamba claimed.

Mamba alleged that it was now 2021 and the staircase had not been constructed and she lost income in excess of E100 000. “I ended up engaging my current attorneys to institute action proceedings against the respondents,” alleged Mamba. In the court papers, Mamba alleged that on March 19 last year, the respondents had requested to settle the full amount, a sum of E150 000. She said she reluctantly agreed to the proposal on condition that the respondents, in addition to paying the sum of E150 000, they should, at their own cost, build the staircase. The applicant claimed this was agreed to. Having reportedly agreed to the proposal by the respondents, Mamba said her attorneys drew up the deed of settlement which was reportedly signed by the applicant and the representative of the respondents.

Agreements

The terms of the agreements, it had been alleged, included that the respondents were to rebuild the damaged staircase at their own expense; construction was supposed to be completed within 10 working days; and that the defendants to pay a total of E160 574 for damages for the other property. This amount, according to the claim, was to be paid in equal monthly instalments of E15 000 commencing on May 30 last year. In case of default, it was reportedly agreed that the applicant would be entitled to cancel the agreement and sue for the full damages, inclusive of loss of business. The agreement was allegedly signed by both parties. In the claim, the respondent is alleged to have paid only three instalments (E45 000). “The last payment was received on or about October 2020. “From that day onwards, no payments were received from the respondents. With regard to the issue of the staircase, to date, they have not constructed it,” claimed the applicant.

The applicant alleged that the respondents made quotations and went on to buy material said to be very light and brittle. “Our welder came and informed us that it would be far better that we re-construct the staircase using the damaged material than the one they had bought,” reads the claim. The applicant further alleged that the parties then agreed on procurement of heavy duty material by the respondent to match the required standard, but it had not been delivered at the time of the filing the application. “On or about November 26, 2020, we attended in Matsapha for the quotation and we subsequently received written confirmation that they will purchase the items and deliver them on November 27, 2020. However, following that, we waited from November 27, 2020 to date and nothing has been delivered and no staircase has been constructed,” alleged the applicant.

Regarding the instalments, the plaintiff alleged that no payment had been made for at least six months. The plaintiff claimed this is in breach of the deed of settlement and wants to be paid an amount of E256 251.20. “In addition to that, we will be claiming (by ways of summons) the outstanding balance for the loss of business and loss of rentals that we have sustained to date,” stressed the applicant. These are allegations contained in a notice of application whose veracity will be tested in court. Attorneys from Robinson Bertram are representing the applicant.