UPDATE: After we sent the paper to print, it comes to our attention that the Court has lifted the freezing order following the appeal lodged by Meta’s lawyers.
A judge at the Federal High Court issued an order to 12 commercial banks to freeze 33 million Br from Meta Abo Brewery’s account in relation to an ongoing court battle against its former distributor, Every Block Distributors Plc.
The UK based Diageo Plc bought Meta from the state in January 2010.
Birkenesh Esubalew, the presiding judge of the Fifth Civil Bench of Lideta Division, ordered for the injunction during the latest court session held on January 11, 2018.
Prior to the latest order, the Judge had issued another action to Wegagen and Dashen banks to freeze the disputed amount, though the former claimed that the defendant has insufficient fund while the latter responded that Meta does not have an account with them.
The case was filed three months ago at the High Court by lawyers representing Every Block, which was established in 2009 by three business partners, with eight million Birr registered capital, to distribute Diageo’s spirits directly from Scotland.
The company sued Meta for unpaid cash of 28.1 million Br deposited in performance payment, 1.4 million Br refund for a loss claiming to have come from expired products, and 1.4 million Br reimbursement for the expenses it says has incurred to remove Meta’s logo and branding from its 14 vehicles. It also appealed to the Court to order Meta pay 1.8 million Br as punitive damage for “unlawful termination of their contract.”
Every Block has been a major distributor of Meta’s products since 2012, along with the liquor. It lawyers claimed that it had reached an agreement with Meta to be paid five percent when it distributes above 250,000 crates of beer a year.
“But Meta settled the payment of only the first year, left with the arrears of three years until the termination of the partnership agreement,” the statement of claim reads.
In its statement of defence submitted on December 18, 2017, Meta`s lawyers disputed that the deal was not mandatory instead depended on their client`s goodwill. Meta, which was established in 1963, also claimed that it is not responsible for the losses caused by the expired items as the plaintiff is expected to distribute them in time.
Meta also contended expense documents did not support the plaintiff’s claim for the cost it incurred to remove logos and branding.
“We would have removed them off with our staff,” claims Meta, which has a production capacity of 1.7 hectoliters a year The. UK based Diageo Plc bought Meta from the state in January 2010.
The Judge issued the injunction order accepting Every Block’s appeal. The case is adjourned to January 26, 2018, for the two parties to proceed with oral litigation.
In another court battle where the two disputing parties changed roles, Meta claims that Every Block owes it 59 million Br in an unsettled balance for the beers it has distributed. The case is pending at Lideta Division of Sixth Civil Bench. Every Block denies the claims the plaintiff has no evidence showing it received the product worth the stated amount.
The case is adjourned to March 14, 2018.
Leave a Reply