WICKNELL DEMANDS $25M FROM ZESA

Wicknell Chivayo's Intratek Zimbabwe is suing the Zimbabwe Power Company for $25 million after its Gwanda solar contract was cancelled. ...

Wicknell Chivayo's Intratek Zimbabwe is suing the Zimbabwe Power Company for $25 million after its Gwanda solar contract was cancelled.

Intratrek lawyers advocates Lewis Uriri and Thabani Mpofu, said $15 million was for loss of profit, $5 million for costs of syndicating partnership with a Chinese partner (CHINT) and sourcing project finance from China Eximbank and another $5 million for reputational damage.

ZPC has insisted that Intratrek failed to satisfy the conditions precedent in time as contractually agreed by the parties.

But Intratrek said :“Notwithstanding the open agreement between the parties, the applicant unjustly and prejudicially frustrated the respondent in satisfying the conditions precedent, thus rendering the applicant to have fictionally satisfied the suspensive conditions.

Intratrek claims ZPC was responsible for causing delays to the implementation of the contract through its failure to obtain an environmental impact assessment certificate and legal charges it instituted against Chivayo alleging fraud and corruption in the execution of the Gwanda solar plant project, which stalled progress in the implementation of the project.

Intratrek also claims that it had agreed to an amendment to the contract, two months before ZPC filed charges claiming fraud and corruption, providing for direct payment of sub-contractors engaged to speed up completion of works under conditions precedent following the initial delays to the project execution. ZPC later allegedly declined to pay the sub-contractors, which Intratrek claims breached a payment clause.

“The objective of entering into an addendum was to address the delays mostly caused by the respondent in ensuring that pre-commencement works are completed within the earliest possible time.”

“It is palpably clear the respondent itself is in breach of the payment clause, which is a material clause under the addendum. Having amended the terms of the EPC contract, the respondent had no legal ground for alleging failure by the claimant to carry out contractual obligation,” Intratrek submitted.