Lsk resident drags Uncle T to court over K272,000 debt

A Lusaka resident has dragged businessman, Trevor Ngandu, commonly known as ‘Uncle T’, to court demanding payment of K272,000 invested in the latter’s business.

The resident, Mwangala Lubinda, said she has suffered loss and damages as the result of Uncle T’s failure to pay her back the money despite having made several demands.

In a statement of claim filed in the Lusaka High Court, July 6, Lubinda stated that she entered into agreements with the defendant, which required her to invest money into Uncle T’s business and at the end of the month, the money was to accrue interest.

She stated that on November 12, 2016, she invested K60,000 and at the end of the month was at liberty to either claim or reinvest the money.

“Lubinda and Uncle T entered into agreements, which required Lubinda to invest money into Uncle T’s microfinance business and at the end of the month, the money invested by Lubinda was to accrue interest. Lubinda on November 12, 2016, invested K60,000 in Uncle T’s business and the money invested was to accrue 30 per cent interest at the end of the month. Lubinda at the end of the month was at liberty to claim for the money or reinvest in Uncle T’s business,” read the statement of claim.

Lubinda stated that she continued investing in Uncle T’s business until July last year.

“Lubinda reinvested the sum of K63,000 in Uncle T’s business and the invested money was to be paid back with 30 per cent interest by Uncle T in an event that Lubinda opted to withdraw the money after 30 days. On December 12, 2017, Lubinda invested a sum of K81,900 in Uncle T’s business and the money invested was to be paid back with 20 per cent. On February 12, 2017, Lubinda invested K101,000 and on March 12, 2017, Lubinda invested K120,200, which was to be paid back with 20 per cent interest after 30 days,” read the statement of claim.

“On April 12, 2017, Lubinda invested K127,000; on May 12, 2017, she invested K159,400; on June 12, 2017, she invested K198,280 and on July 12, 2017, Lubinda invested a sum of K227,936, to be paid with 20 per cent interest after 30 days in an event that she opted to withdraw the money.”

Lubinda disclosed that on August 15, she gave the defendant five days’ notice as per agreements to withdraw all the money invested, but Ngandu had failed to pay back despite several demands.

She is now claiming for an order of payment of the sum of K272,000, interest, damages and costs.

“Lubinda on, or before August 15, gave five days’ notice as per agreements to withdraw all the money invested in Uncle T’s finance company. The defendant has failed to pay back Lubinda despite several demands to him. And as a result, the plaintiff has suffered loss and damages and now claims as follows; an order of payment of the sum of K272,000, interest, damages and costs,” read the statement of claim.

Meanwhile, Chief Kaindu of the Kaonde speaking people has sued a contractor for failing to pay a commission of 10 per cent totalling US$50,000, or around K488,950, accrued as a result of the commission agreement for the sale of a smelter.

Chief Kaindu, named as, Moses Kapandula, has sued a mining dealer for failing to pay a commission of 10 accrued as a result of the commission agreement for the sale of a smelter.

“The defendant (Patson Munyamata) is a businessman, contractor and a mining dealer parading his business and skills in the area surrounding the kingdom. On January 19, 2016, vide an agreement styled as ‘commission agreement for sale of smelter for Mr Patson Munyamata’, the parties did commit themselves to the execution of the said deed of agreement for the sole purpose of the plaintiff to find a buyer. The plaintiff did proceed to find a buyer and the subject property was ultimately sold and paid for,” read the statement of claim.

Chief Kaindu stated that upon selling, the defendant became adamant and switched off the phone, thereby, leading into failure to settle the amount being demanded for.

“That in the conformity and consonance of the herein executed did the defendant was obliged or legally mandated to give effect to the payment of the said agreement commission of 10 per cent totalling US $50,000. Upon selling, the defendant became adamant, aversive, truant and ultimately opted to switch off the phone, thereby, leading into failure to settle the amount being demanded herein. The plaintiff is truly entitled to the payment of the said commission, both legally and equitably, to the extent. Defendant has ignored the sole purpose of the business, total suffering of the plaintiffs as they invested all they had,” the statement of claim read further.

The plaintiff now claims payment of the commission of 10 per cent accrued as a result of the commission agreement for the sale of a smelter, which commission had arisen as a result of the plaintiff finding a ready and willing buyer, a further payment of 10 per cent borne pursuant to the provision of S.I No. 8 and 9 of 1999, damages, interests, reliefs and costs.

         

Zondiwe Mbewe

About Zondiwe Mbewe

Zondiwe is a vibrant young Zambian journalist who has interest in writing political and current affairs on issues which affect every Zambians. She draws inspiration from journalists who stand for what is right and are not afraid to tell and show the truth to the people.
Email: zondiwe [at] diggers [dot] news

View All Posts

Comment on article

avatar
4000
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Send this to a friend