Flame Works and Supplies Limited has rejected and counterclaimed against a US$600,000 breach of contract claim filed in the High Court by Umesh Patel and Time Trucking Limited.
Flame has claimed that from a contract sum of US$1,250,000 there was an outstanding US$149,153.63 because the house they were contracted to build was completed and occupied by the family.
Flame has now counterclaimed demanding to be paid US$833,753:63 with interest as outstanding dues.
Flame has dismissed as unfounded allegations of poor workmanship and delays, stating that the house was handed over in 2013 and that since then the family had not suffered and distress and inconvenience “ As they have happily in occupation of the house since 14th November 2013 and have held diverse social functions at the said house.”
This is a case in which Lusaka’s Eureka Park proprietor Umesh Patel has sued Flame Works and Supplies Limited for breach of contract and damages amounting to US$603, 683, 44.
Mr. Patel has complained that the house was not completed to specification as there was subsidence and ingress of mosisture whiuch had resulted in cracks in walls and moisture penetration leading to peeling of paint and as a result he had suffered loss.
The express term of contract was such that Mr. Patel would pay the contractor a procurement fee in the sum of US$700, 000 to enable them begin shop drawings.
He has argued that Flames Works agreed to carry out the works with expertise, reasonable care and skill but the contractor alleged failed to build a proper foundation to prevent subsidence which resulted in cracked walls.
But Flames Works in its defence and counterclaim has stated that although it agreed to build the house, he did not consent to decorating it.
The constructor has argued that the supply of Zesco main electricity networks, external electrical works and the provision of landscape related civil works, external pool, sauna and salination plant were not part of the contract.
Flame Works has further argued that all materials it supplied were inspected and approved by Mr Patel’s design architects.
The contractor has therefore demanded that Mr Patel should be stopped from alleging poor workmanship when the plaintiff and his family have been in occupation of the house since November 2013.
The contractor has stated that the works on the house were completed by November 14, 2013 when it was handed over to Mr Patel and his family.
Flames and Works has denied that Mr Patel and family have suffered distress and inconvenience as they had been happily in occupation of the house since November 14, 2013 and have allegedly held diverse social functions at the same house.
Flames Works is therefore demanding from Mr Patel US$833,753:63 with interest as outstanding dues.