Business / Companies
Africom slapped with a $147,000 lawsuit
15 May 2013 at 03:17hrs | Views
AFRICOM Holdings (Private) Limited has been slapped with a US$146 848 lawsuit for allegedly failing to pay for some CDMA wireless modems supplied to them by a local firm.
Superpos (Pvt) Ltd claims it supplied 996 modems to Africom at US$38 each and only US$5 000 was paid, leaving a balance of US$32 848.
The same supplier claims Africom placed another order for 5 000 modems and later refused to accept the delivery.
Suprepos argues that its supplier in China had produced 3 000 modems in fulfilment of the Africom order and a U-turn by the internet service provider has left Superpos stranded with the 3 000 modems worth US$114 000.
Hove and Partners law firm have issued summons at the High Court on behalf of Superspos claiming payment of the US$114 000 for the unaccepted modems together with the US$32 848 for those that were delivered.
According to the summons, the parties signed the first agreement in June 2011 for the supply of 1 000 customised EVDO CDMA wireless modems at US$38 each.
The parties later agreed for the delivery of 996 modems worth US$37 848 before any payment was done.
Africom reportedly paid US$5 000 leaving a balance of US$32 848.
Superpos contends that Africom refused to pay the balance despite repeated demands to do so.
In the second claim, Suprepos says it entered into another deal with Africom for the supply of 5 000 modems for the same unit price.
Suprepos said it then placed an order for the 5 000 modems. When Africom allegedly failed to pay as expected, Superpos cancelled the order.
At that time the Chinese supplier had already produced 3 000 modems and Superpos says it is now stranded with the modems because they cannot use them here.
A plea filed by Africom's lawyers on behalf of the defendant states that the 996 modems delivered did not meet their client's specifications.
"Defendant admits taking delivery of the wireless modems. Defendant adds that the modems delivered were not in accordance with the agreement between the parties as stated in four of the particulars of claim in that the modems were not customised as agreed.
"Given that the modems were not customised and as such not usable to the plaintiff, such modems were in fact worthless," read the plea.
On the second claim, Africom disputes everything mentioned and says it is not aware of the 3 000 modems.
The parties now await to appear before a High Court judge for pre-trial conference.
Superpos (Pvt) Ltd claims it supplied 996 modems to Africom at US$38 each and only US$5 000 was paid, leaving a balance of US$32 848.
The same supplier claims Africom placed another order for 5 000 modems and later refused to accept the delivery.
Suprepos argues that its supplier in China had produced 3 000 modems in fulfilment of the Africom order and a U-turn by the internet service provider has left Superpos stranded with the 3 000 modems worth US$114 000.
Hove and Partners law firm have issued summons at the High Court on behalf of Superspos claiming payment of the US$114 000 for the unaccepted modems together with the US$32 848 for those that were delivered.
According to the summons, the parties signed the first agreement in June 2011 for the supply of 1 000 customised EVDO CDMA wireless modems at US$38 each.
The parties later agreed for the delivery of 996 modems worth US$37 848 before any payment was done.
Africom reportedly paid US$5 000 leaving a balance of US$32 848.
In the second claim, Suprepos says it entered into another deal with Africom for the supply of 5 000 modems for the same unit price.
Suprepos said it then placed an order for the 5 000 modems. When Africom allegedly failed to pay as expected, Superpos cancelled the order.
At that time the Chinese supplier had already produced 3 000 modems and Superpos says it is now stranded with the modems because they cannot use them here.
A plea filed by Africom's lawyers on behalf of the defendant states that the 996 modems delivered did not meet their client's specifications.
"Defendant admits taking delivery of the wireless modems. Defendant adds that the modems delivered were not in accordance with the agreement between the parties as stated in four of the particulars of claim in that the modems were not customised as agreed.
"Given that the modems were not customised and as such not usable to the plaintiff, such modems were in fact worthless," read the plea.
On the second claim, Africom disputes everything mentioned and says it is not aware of the 3 000 modems.
The parties now await to appear before a High Court judge for pre-trial conference.
Source - herald
