Itezhi-Tezhi MP, businessman enter consent judgment in “Range Rover” case

Itezh-Tezhi UPND member of parliament Herbert Shabula and a businessman have entered a consent judgment in a matter in which the lawmaker was sued for allegedly failing to pay K180,000 for a Range Rover Vogue he had purchased.

In this matter, Mike Likando Matakala had sued Shabula in the Lusaka High Court, seeking an order that the lawmaker pays the sum of K180,000, interest, costs and any other relief.

Shabula, who is acting on his own behalf, and Matakala through his lawyers, have proposed that the member of parliament pays Matakala the sum of K180,000 and K20,000 as costs.

According to the consent judgment, the sum and costs (K200,000) should be paid in two monthly installments with the first payment of K100,000 to be made on the last day of this month end (September 2019) while the remaining payment would be done on the last day of October, 2019.

It further stated that Shabula would be at liberty to settle the entire judgment sum or any balance before the scheduled date.

“In default of payment on the last day of the scheduled months, the defendant shall be allowed a further five working days to make payments,” read the consent judgment in part.

It further stated that if Shabula fails to honor the agreement, Matakala would be at liberty to enforce judgment by way of a writ of fierie facias without leave of the court and to be entitled to costs associated with the action.

Matakala had stated that on June 7, 2018, he sold his motor vehicle, a black Range Rover Vogue bearing the registration number BAA 3340, to Shabula at K180,000 to be paid on July 30, 2018.

He claimed that Shabula had failed or neglected to settle the amount involved as agreed despite repeated efforts to get him to do so.

But in his defence, Shabula denied the allegations and stated that he would aver at trial that he had offered to pay the amount of money involved in instalments but Matakala had declined the offer.

“Save as herein before expressly admitted, the defendant deny each and every of the claims advanced in the statement of claim as if the same were herein set out seriatim and specifically traversed,” stated Shabula.

Comment on article

Comment on article:

  Subscribe  
Notify of

[search_popup]

Send this to a friend