Business / Companies
Metallon Gold Zimbabwe sued for over $15 000 debts
01 Oct 2016 at 06:57hrs | Views
SAFECO Private Limited has sued the Metallon Gold Zimbabwe trading as Shamva Mine for a debt of $15 416, 79 the amount owed for the supply of the clothing.
"The applicant which deals in manufacturing and supply of protective clothing for the mining industry supplied the respondent( Metallon Gold Zimbabwe) with protective clothing in the period extending May 2015 to March 2016 at a total cost of $19 687,44," reads the summons.
The company said Metallon Gold only paid $4 270, 65 and by the time the summons was served it had paid further $877, 60 leaving a balance of $14 539, 19. It stated that the respondent further paid $5000 and was left with the balance of $9 539, 19 after being served with the summons.
SAFECO Private Limited is seeking a summary judgment against Metallon Gold Zimbabwe.
"The fact above speaks for themselves, and it is my submissions that the Respondent has no bona fide defence to the applicant's claim. Notice of appearance to defend entered by the respondent is simple to waste time and delay justice. The respondent borrowed monies from other entities to finance supplies to the applicant and is now under constant threat of legal action," reads the application.
The company said it could only be fair for the respondent to be made to pay the cost on an attorney and client scale and it has not only caused prejudice to the applicant by filing and appearance to defend where it should had simply paid but also dedicated to matters that really deserved litigation.
"The applicant which deals in manufacturing and supply of protective clothing for the mining industry supplied the respondent( Metallon Gold Zimbabwe) with protective clothing in the period extending May 2015 to March 2016 at a total cost of $19 687,44," reads the summons.
The company said Metallon Gold only paid $4 270, 65 and by the time the summons was served it had paid further $877, 60 leaving a balance of $14 539, 19. It stated that the respondent further paid $5000 and was left with the balance of $9 539, 19 after being served with the summons.
"The fact above speaks for themselves, and it is my submissions that the Respondent has no bona fide defence to the applicant's claim. Notice of appearance to defend entered by the respondent is simple to waste time and delay justice. The respondent borrowed monies from other entities to finance supplies to the applicant and is now under constant threat of legal action," reads the application.
The company said it could only be fair for the respondent to be made to pay the cost on an attorney and client scale and it has not only caused prejudice to the applicant by filing and appearance to defend where it should had simply paid but also dedicated to matters that really deserved litigation.
Source - Byo24News
