Nakoda Investment Limited has sued Mount Meru Petroleum Zambia Limited for failing to pay US$ 268,000 due on 5th December 2020 for a piece of land that the petroleum company acquired. The land in question which Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd defaulted on payment is around 1,413 square and is situated in Lusaka.
According to court documents seen by the Zambian Business Times-ZBT, “On the 4th of August 2020,the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written contract of sale of the said stand No.S/LUSAK/3195483 whereby the plaintiff (Nakonda Investments) was the vendor and the defendant (Mount Meru) was the purchaser”.
Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd paid USD 33,500, which is 10% of the price of the land upon receiving a certified copy of the certificate of title from Nakoda Investment Ltd as proof of ownership thereof as stated by the contract.
It was agreed between the two parties that Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd would pay 80% of the purchase price translating to USD 268, 000 on or before 5th December 2020.
Nakonda complained that “Despite numerous requests and reminders, Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd failed, refused, neglected and ignored to settle the said USD 268,000 which led to Nakoda Investment Ltd, through its lawyers,writing a formal demand letter requesting payment of the said amount on the 19th of April 2021”.
On 22nd April 2021,Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd responded to Nakoda Investment Ltd by raising extraneous issues concerning ZESCO, Lusaka City Council and the neighbouring plot which issues are extrinsic to the contract and which Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd was fully aware of or ought to have been fully aware of at the time of executing the contract.
On the 27th April 2021,Nakoda Investment Ltd through its lawyers wrote to Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd to the effect that the land in question was properly described in the contract of sale and Mount Meru had clear knowledge of the land and its adjoining lands .
On 3rd May 2021, Mount Meru’s advocates responded to Nakoda Investment Ltd outlining further excuses for non payment which excuses are extrinsic to the contract and purported that Mount Meru had opted to rescind the contract and made a demand for a refund of the deposit of USD 33,500 which was paid.
Nakonda argued that “The purported rescission is null and void ab initio and of no legal effect whatsoever on the following grounds: There has been no breach of any term of the contract in question by the Nakoda Investment Ltd to warrant any rescission”.
Nakoda Investment Ltd is also demanding for nullification of the purported rescission of the contract by Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd for being void ab initio and being of no legal effect based on the fact that the legal requirements for rescission have not been satisfied by Mount Meru Petroleum Ltd. The matter is still at the high court and awaiting trial.
