US$78 485-61 delivered to Shamva Gold Mine; US$ 245 467-82 delivered to How Gold Mine; US$ 626-96 delivered to Redwing Gold Mine; and US$ 36 184-02 delivered to Mazoe Gold Mine. The claim was denied by the appellant. In para 4 of its plea it averred: the defendant accepts that certain electrical goods were purchased by it from the “While plaintiff, defendant denies receipt of most of the goods to which the claim relates and puts plaintiff to the proof thereof. The defendant further avers that plaintiff has been requested to provide a proper and correct summary of goods delivered in order for payment to be made but plaintiff is still to do so. The defendant further denies that any proper demand for payment had been made by the plaintiff as alleged.” During April 2012, three pre-trial conferences were held at which the parties attempted to reconcile the figures in order to arrive at some consensus as to the amount owing and a possible settlement. The figures having been so reconciled, the amount claimed was reduced to $301 342.73. However, the parties were unable to agree on the outstanding issues and, on 30 April 2012, the matter was referred to trial on three issues, namely:- Whether the defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum claimed or any other sum at all; Whether the defendant received all the goods forming the subject of the plaintiffs claim; and Whether due and proper demand for payment was made to the defendant prior to the issue of summons.
US$78 485-61 delivered to Shamva Gold Mine; US$ 245 467-82 delivered to How Gold Mine; US$ 626-96 delivered to Redwing Gold Mine; and US$ 36 184-02 delivered to Mazoe Gold Mine. The claim was denied by the appellant. In para 4 of its plea it averred: “While the defendant accepts that certain electrical goods were purchased by it from the plaintiff, defendant denies receipt of most of the goods to which the claim relates and puts plaintiff to the proof thereof. The defendant further avers that plaintiff has been requested to provide a proper and correct summary of goods delivered in order for payment to be made but plaintiff is still to do so. The defendant further denies that any proper demand for payment had been made by the plaintiff as alleged.” During April 2012, three pre-trial conferences were held at which the parties attempted to reconcile the figures in order to arrive at some consensus as to the amount owing and a possible settlement. The figures having been so reconciled, the amount claimed was reduced to $301 342.73. However, the parties were unable to agree on the outstanding issues and, on 30 April 2012, the matter was referred to trial on three issues, namely:- Whether the defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum claimed or any other sum at all; Whether the defendant received all the goods forming the subject of the plaintiffs claim; and Whether due and proper demand for payment was made to the defendant prior to the issue of summons.
SC%2012-15%20-%20METALLON%20GOLD%20ZIMBABWE%20v%20GOLDEN%20MILLION%20%28PVT%29%20LIMITED.docx