BUSINESSMAN WANTS E160 000 IN BREACH OF MOU CLAIM

MBABANE – A South African businessman has taken Swazi Plastic Industries to court demanding E160 000 for alleged breach of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

Wayne Parsons (plaintiff), a South African entrepreneur residing at Tubungu, in his particulars of claim, mentioned that on May 22, 2019, he entered into a written MoU with the defendant (Swazi Plastic Industries) on rates, the effect of which was that Swazi Plastic Industries enlisted professional services of the plaintiff.

Parsons claimed the material terms of the MoU were inter alia that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff a pull of 80 hours a month at E500 per hour.
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.

The purported MoU, according to the plaintiff, further stipulated for every extra hour worked after the 80 hours between Mondays and Fridays, it would attract an extra E500 per hour.

“For hours worked over the weekend, plaintiff was to be paid an overtime rate of 1.3 per hour,” alleged Parsons.
He further claimed that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff every Friday subject to approved invoices by the factory manager. Parsons also alleged that in terms of the agreement, he was always on call for among others, fixing the machines and ensuring that they were in working condition at all material times at the defendant’s place of business.

Stipulated

“The plaintiff avers that over and above the terms stipulated in the MoU on rates, the parties agreed further that plaintiff will be paid by the defendant a retainer fee of E40 000 per month,” submitted the plaintiff.

Parsons alleged that the defendants had breached the agreement by among other things writing to him on December 2, 2019, advising him that his decision to unilaterally terminate the agreement was confirmed despite having not confirmed any cancellation in any manner whatsoever.

Furthermore, he averred that despite communication through his attorneys advising Swazi Plastic Industries to withdraw the alleged acceptance of his unilateral termination and allow him to continue discharging his obligations in terms of the agreement, the defendant denied him access and stopped paying him in November 2019.

As a result of the purported defendant’s breach, Parsons claimed that he had lost income, could not access the site and consequently could not meet his financial obligations as he was not paid the retainer fee.

“When the agreement was concluded, the plaintiff and the defendant were aware of the following facts, and the agreement was entered into on the basis of the following facts: that the plaintiff will have unlimited access at the site to ensure that production is not stifled by not working machinery, hence the machines should be at a workmanlike condition at all material times,” alleged Parsons.

He further claimed that the agreement concluded that he would always be available whenever Swazi Plastic Industries required him without fail and that he could not commit to other jobs as he was required to avail himself as and when required by the defendant.

Parsons averred that as a result of the defendant’s alleged breach of agreement, he had lost income in the sum of E160 000 representing the outstanding months of the contract being December, January, February and March.

He claimed that these months were now owed and payable but despite demand, the defendant refused and or neglected to pay same.
His prayers to the High Court were that he be paid the E160 000 and that its compensation should incur an interest of 9 per cent per annum. Parsons further sought that the costs of suit be incurred by the defendant.

Summons

In the event the defendant was disputing the claim, Swazi Plastic Industries was advised to within 10 days of receiving the summons to file their notice of intention to oppose and serve a copy thereof to the plaintiff.

Thereafter, the defendant was further advised that they 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.
Parsons is represented by attorneys from Linda Dlamini and Associates.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: