Yonas, who had been set free two months ago from jail for cyber crime, has a counter action for compensation still in court
The Lideta Federal High Court rejected a suit filed by Orchid Business Group Plc (OBG) against Yonas Kassahun demanding the transfer of ownership of three Bobcat trucks and compensation for time the trucks had been suspended from use.
Yonas had also filed a cross action claiming ownership of the trucks and a compensation for the service the trucks had rendered to Orchid. The cross-action is what remains with the court now, as the court has thrown out Orchid's claim.
Orchid, a business group composing different investment companies, is engaged in the business of transport, machinery rental, transit, construction, horticulture and other businesses. Owned and managed by Akiko Seyom, the company had been previously involved in litigation, both civil and criminal, with Yonas Kassahun, a Diaspora investor holding German citizenship.
Orchid had conditionally won an auction to participate in a petroleum extraction project at Kobye area in the Southern Regional State. One of the conditions Orchid had to fulfill for its auction with the project was supplying three Bobcat trucks, which led to a deal between Orchid and Bobcat Bensheim GmbH in Germany.
Due to deficit of foreign currency, Orchid could not discharge its contractual payment in a timely manner, as indicated in the statement claim. Yonas Kassahun, Akiko's friend at the time agreed to get the trucks to Ethiopia using his duty free status, Orchid claimed; this arrangement caused the legal litigation between the two.
Orchid alleged in its claim filed on March 4, 2013, that the trucks had been delivered to it in the name of Yonas after Soldan International Plc, a sister company of Orchid based in Dubai, paid 106,000 euro to the supplier in Germany.
To transfer the trucks into its name, Orchid said that it had concluded a sale contract worth 1.9 million Br with Yonas, but Yonas had refused to transfer the vehicle ownership and he ordered the trucks to be suspended from work at the project. Thus, Orchid asked the Court to order forced performance of the contract and asked four million Birr compensation for the damages it incurred due to the suspension.
Objecting that Orchid could not sue him to be forced to transfer the trucks, as they are already in the hands of Orchid, and claiming that it is not up to the courts to decide on issues related to transferring ownership, Yonas himself instituted a cross action on Orchid and his own agent Yared Fikre at the same lawsuit, on April 15, 2013. Decision about ownership transfer is an administrative function, Yonas claimed.
In his cross action, Yonas alleged that his agent, Yared Fikre, had concluded three contractual agreements for the transfer of the heavy trucks to Orchid, exceeding the agency duties given to him by Yonas and law of the agency. Reminding that he did not even receive the sales proceeds, Yonas asked the Court to order the handing over of the trucks to him and refund the money gained by Orchid so far as it was renting the trucks.
Orchid objected the cross action by saying that Yonas had no grounds to sue because beyond the contract signed between Orchid and the agent, there is an actual contract for the sale of the trucks between Orchid and Yonas himself. Yared on his side defended that he signed the sale contract because he had acquired an agency right to do so from Yonas himself.
The Court rejected the forced performance claim of Orchid by saying that Orchid had clearly provided in its allegation that the three trucks are in its hands and there is nothing that the defendant had not fulfilled.
On the transfer of the name of the trucks, the Court had also rejected the allegation by referring the transfer as the prerogative of an administrative organ not the courts. Rejecting the preliminary objections of Orchid, the Court decided to continue with the hearing of the counter action instituted by Yonas and made an appointment for the next hearing on July 15, 2015.
Yonas had been set free two months ago from jail for cyber crime after the High Court's decision of six month imprisonment on suspension.
No comments:
Post a Comment