A United Kingdom-based firm, Otto Simon Limited, has approached local courts seeking an order to compel Hwange Colliery Company (HCC), to pay more than $8,6 million for the refurbishment and repairs done to the mine’s coke oven.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Otto Simon refurbishes and maintains coke ovens and plants.
According to summons issued against Hwange Colliery in January this year, Otto Simon claimed that sometime in February 2010, it entered into a contract with the mine for the provision of coke oven specialists for the maintenance and initial repairs and the strategy was dubbed service contract.
Otto Simon said the contract was on a reimbursable basis for time and expenses of the specialists, together with the necessary support, services and supplies it would have made and that it was anticipated to last for eight months.
After the agreed period, the firm said, the contract was incomplete as it was recognised that one section of the battery was in need of urgent attention and that led to another contract dubbed the six wall contract being signed between the parties.
“While this contract was being carried out, in December 2010, the contract for rolling rebuild of the defendants (Hwange) coke oven battery dubbed (the rolling building contract) was agreed and signed on behalf of the defendant on January 22, 2011 by the then managing director Fred Moyo and on behalf of the plaintiff (Otto Simon) by Steve Haywood,” Otto Simon lawyers said.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“The contract had a price of $14 000 000. The contract set out the scope of work and responsibilities of both the plaintiff and defendant required to successfully rebuild the battery.”
Otto Simon also said since the inception of various contracts between itself and Hwange Colliery, it had proved difficult to allocate payments against specific invoices.
“Payments made by defendant (Hwange) from various sources have not been made on a regular basis and have not been accompanied by any form of meaningful remittance advice,” it said.
“Plaintiff has, therefore, allocated payments on a reducing balance basis. The statement of account as at June 30, 2015 includes all invoices issued by plaintiff to the defendant under the various contracts referred to above and shows an outstanding balance of $8 636 393, 19.”
After entering an appearance to defended notice, HCC lawyers wrote to Otto Simon lawyers advising that their declaration was defective.
“As it stands the declaration does not state when each invoice, under each contract, was due and payable. We advise that such information is crucial in sustaining a cause of action,” the colliery’s lawyers said.
