EPTC DEMANDS OVER E2.2M FROM LUCT

MBABANE – EPTC is demanding over E2.2 million from Limkokwing University of Creative Technology.

The Eswatini Post and Telecommunication Corporation (EPTC) claims that the aforementioned amount was in respect of leased fixed telephone services it provided to the learning institution.

The exact amount that the corporation is demanding from Limkokwing University of Creative Technology (Swaziland) PTY Limited is E2 243 784.43.
Through its attorneys from SV Mdladla & Associates, EPTC had since instituted legal proceedings against the university where it is demanding payment.  In its summons, EPTC averred that despite several demands and reminders, the university had allegedly refused and/or neglected to pay the aforementioned amount.
These are allegations contained in an affidavit whose veracity is still to be tested in court and the university is yet to respond in the event it is disputing the claim against it.

In the summons the university was informed that in the event it disputes the claim against it, it should within 10 days of service file with the registrar of the High Court, its notice of intention to defend.

notice

“Inform the defendant (University of Creative Technology (Swaziland) PTY Limited) that if it fails to file and serve notice as aforesaid, judgment as claimed may be given against it without further notice to it,” read part of the summons.

Meanwhile, last year the learning institution filed a lawsuit against a security firm that was rendering security services within its premises.  The university is demanding E645 000 that was stolen at the university during a robbery.

According to the university, the security personnel employed by the defendant (ANPED Security Services) failed to exercise due care and allowed an intruder into the premises.

Giving background of the matter, the plaintiff (Limkokwing University of Creative Technology) stated that in July 2014 it entered into an oral agreement with the defendant. During the signing of the agreement, the defendant was allegedly represented reby its Managing Director Andreas Dlamini and the plaintiff by Doctor Simelane who was the Operations and Human Resources Manager and Steven Lum who is the vice president.

The agreement, according to the plaintiff was to the effect that, the defendant would offer security services at its (plaintiff) premises and safeguarding its buildings.

In its particulars of claim, the plaintiff stated that in the month of September 2014, the parties decided to reduce the agreement into writing.
The material terms of the agreement according to the university was that the security firm would provide 16 security personnel, ensure sufficient  and proper security controls at the main entrance and other strategic locations, prevent unauthorised people from entering the premises, prevent theft or break-ins, report incidents and accidents on a monthly basis and provide additional security personnel when needed.

agreement

The parties also allegedly discussed the issue of indemnity, which was also part of the written agreement.
“On or about September 21, 2018, the defendant’s security failed to exercise due care and allowed an intruder into the premises. The intruder overpowered the security personnel after being let into the premises and went on to enter the finance office and stole an amount of E645 000,” submitted the university.

According to the management of the institution, the security personnel had been advised that after 8pm, no outsider should be allowed into the premises.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s security personnel negligently, unlawfully and in total breach of duty of care imposed by the agreement, allowed the intruder into the premises.

“The intruder did not force his way into the premises but was, however, let in by the defendant’s employees,” averred the plaintiff.
The university contended that as a result of this, it suffered a loss of E645 000. Through its attorney, the university alleged that in September 2018, its representatives met with management of the defendant and demanded compensation for the amount lost during the robbery on the basis of failure to exercise due care.

The management of the security firm is alleged to have, however, failed and neglected to pay the amount which was now due, payable and owing.
The matter is also still pending at the High Court.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: