News / National
MDC sued over $14 000 telecoms equipment hire debt
07 Dec 2018 at 05:48hrs | Views
THE High Court has ordered opposition MDC party to pay $14 146 to a local telecommunications firm, Ericom Communications, for equipment hired nearly two decades ago.
The telecommunication firm filed summons against the MDC on September 12, 2017 and the party entered an appearance to defend, but the move was challenged by the firm, leading to an application for a summary judgment.
On Wednesday, High Court judge Justice Alpheus Chitakunye ruled in favour of Ericom, and ordered the MDC to settle the debt, along with interest and the cost of the suit.
According to the court papers, the MDC hired equipment from Ericom and also contracted the firm to install and maintain the equipment for a three-year period, but the political party later reneged on payment.
"This is an application for summary judgment against the respondent in terms of Rule 64 of the High Court Rules, 1971…on September 12, 2017 the applicant issued a summons…claiming judgment in the sum of $14 146 being a debt due and owing by the respondent in respect of certain services rendered at the specific instance and request of the respondent, which amount the respondent refused and or failed to pay despite demand…" the firm's managing director Patrick Cox said in his founding affidavit.
"…I wish to state that in my belief the respondent has no bona fide defence to the claim and the entry of appearance to defend was made merely to … buy time to the applicant's prejudice…"
The telecommunication firm filed summons against the MDC on September 12, 2017 and the party entered an appearance to defend, but the move was challenged by the firm, leading to an application for a summary judgment.
On Wednesday, High Court judge Justice Alpheus Chitakunye ruled in favour of Ericom, and ordered the MDC to settle the debt, along with interest and the cost of the suit.
According to the court papers, the MDC hired equipment from Ericom and also contracted the firm to install and maintain the equipment for a three-year period, but the political party later reneged on payment.
"This is an application for summary judgment against the respondent in terms of Rule 64 of the High Court Rules, 1971…on September 12, 2017 the applicant issued a summons…claiming judgment in the sum of $14 146 being a debt due and owing by the respondent in respect of certain services rendered at the specific instance and request of the respondent, which amount the respondent refused and or failed to pay despite demand…" the firm's managing director Patrick Cox said in his founding affidavit.
"…I wish to state that in my belief the respondent has no bona fide defence to the claim and the entry of appearance to defend was made merely to … buy time to the applicant's prejudice…"
Source - newsday
