Military institute and army foundation are to present preliminary objections they made to a multimillion Birr civil suit filed against them over a farming contract the latter is alleged to terminate unlawfully in September 2012.
The Tolay Military Officers Training Institute & the Army Foundation, which supervises the Institute, are facing a lawsuit, as first and second defendants, filed against them by Zewditu Nigussie, for unlawful termination of a contract entered for agricultural investment on 305ha of land; Zewditu is claiming 12.4 million Br in damages from the two.
The land involved is occupied by the institute, which is under the supervision of the Army Foundation. The institute announced a tender for agricultural investment on the land, which Zewditu won, according to the statement of claim.
Then a contract was made in 2007 to cultivate the 305ha of land, and to pass 31pc of the profits to the school. Zewditu claims investing over four million Birr on the farm, despite the institute passing to her only 185ha and refusing to hand over the rest. She also claimed that the institute was supposed to hand over cleared land to her, which it did not do, leading her to incur costs for clearing as well as building replacement residential houses for people relocated from the site.
As the profits earned from the agricultural output increased, she claimed that the first defendant asked for the increment of their profit share to 51pc, which she was willing to negotiate. But the second defendant, the Foundation, gave her a five-day notice to respond to its new set of conditions in order to continue the contract. One of the conditions was conducting an audit of the financial performance of the farm, including the revenues and expenses. Then the foundation told her after only two days that the contract had been cancelled, according to the statement of claim.
She asked the court to void the termination of the contract by the Foundation, claiming that it did not have the right to terminate the contract. She said the reasons given as leading to the terminations were not conditions included in the contract and asked the court to enforce the contract for the remaining five years of its 10-year duration. She also asked for a ruling to get the remaining 120ha of land, which had not been handed over to her.
Alternatively, if the contract is to be terminated, she asked the court for a payment of compensation worth 12.4 million Br for the profits she would have potentially earned had the contract continued. In addition, she also asked the court to force the defendants to pay the duty she could be asked for the agricultural machineries she had imported, as she could be deprived of the duty-free privilege if the contract is discontinued.
The Federal High Court, which looked at the case on January 23, 2015, has given the defendants an appointment to present their preliminary objection after a month.
Leave a Reply