Rainbow Party leader Wynter Kabimba’s law firm has denied owing National Pensions Scheme Authority (NAPSA) unpaid rentals of over K300,000, claiming that several payments it made had been omitted by the pensions in its statement of claim despite the law firm possessing receipts.

This is the matter in which NAPSA has sued Kabimba’s law firm, Wynter Kabimba and Company, claiming payment of K377,339.25 for rentals due as at June 30 this year, payment of K14,195 utility charges, mesne (intermediate) profits and vacant possession of the said premises.

In its statement of claim filed in the High Court Commercial registry, NAPSA had stated that the defendant, W.M. Kabimba and Company, was its tenant at Plot No.6131 Godfrey House, Longolongo Road in Lusaka after it entered into a lease agreement with it sometime in 1996 for the possession and occupancy of a portion of Godfrey House.

It added that the lease agreement was renewable yearly.

NAPSA had stated that Kabimba’s firm had, throughout the use of the premises, been liable to pay the agreed monthly rent which currently stood at K377,339.25 as at June 30, 2019, but added that it had made no efforts to honour its obligation.

“That during the period that the defendant has been in possession of the demised premises, the defendant has been inconsistent in paying its rentals and has unjustifiably refused, failed or neglected to liquidate the rental arrears despite several reminders,” read the statement of claim.

But in its defence, the law firm stated that it had been consistent in its rental obligations since it occupied the premises in 1996.

The law firm added that there was no demand made to it giving rise to the action, as there was a cause of action number 2018/HPC/0130 pending before court which NAPSA discontinued on June 28, 2019.

It stated that it had been a tenant of the premises in question for 23 years, paying rentals to NAPSA despite the authority’s failure on its part to fulfill its obligations to the law firm under the lease agreement.

The law firm stated that several payments made by the company had been omitted by NAPSA in its statement of claim despite the law firm possessing receipts issued by NAPSA.

“As to the admission herein before expressly admitted, the defendant denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the statement of claim as if the same were set forth herein and traversed seriatim,” W.M Kabimba stated.

However, NAPSA in its reply insisted that the law firm had been inconsistent with payments and still owed rental arrears and service charges despite being served with several demand letters.

It stated that the parties tried to reconcile the figures but Kabimba’s law firm failed to produce receipts as proof of payments allegedly omitted by NAPSA in its records.

“The defendant has not been consistent with the monthly rentals and the plaintiff fulfilled its obligations under the lease agreement. The plaintiffs denies each and every claim of the defendant’s defence,” stated NAPSA.