BULAWAYO – Edgars Stores Limited has secured a victory in its ongoing court docket battle towards former worker, Jabulani Mlotshwa, who stands accused of looting hundreds of thousands of {dollars} from the retail big, paving the best way for the case to proceed to trial.
The court docket dismissed a preliminary level raised by Mlotshwa, a Merchandise Executive, concerning non-compliance with Rule 42(9) of the High Court Rules, 2021.
Justice Joel Mambara upheld exceptions raised by Mlotshwa with respect to claims 3 and 4 of Edgars declaration, however granted the corporate depart to amend its declaration inside 10 days to make clear the particular responsibility breached and the exact loss incurred.
The dispute between Edgars and Mlotshwa dates again to 2016, when Mlotshwa was employed by the corporate. Edgars alleges that Mlotshwa engaged third-party suppliers with out the corporate’s information or authority, leading to vital monetary losses.
The firm claims that Mlotshwa disbursed sums amounting to ZAR 388,280.25, ZAR 433,912.33, ZAR 2,795,187.93, US$1,385,810, ZAR 34,340.63, and US$80,433 in furtherance of those transactions.
“The plaintiff (Edgars) contends that the defendant’s (Mlotshwa) failure to comply with the established procurement and inventory administration procedures resulted in non-delivery or substandard supply of merchandise, thereby inflicting vital patrimonial loss.
“Following the invention of those irregularities, the defendant resigned on 13 January 2023 purportedly to pre-empt disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff has since sought redress for the losses incurred.
“In response, the defendant has raised an exception arguing that the plaintiff’s pleadings are vague, embarrassing, and deficient in establishing a cause of action based on delict.”
In his judgement, Justice Mambara cited the significance of balancing procedural compliance with the necessity for substantive decision of disputes. The court docket’s choice permits the matter to proceed to trial on the substantive points.
“The defendant’s preliminary level concerning non-compliance with Rule 42(9) is dismissed.
“The exception raised by the defendant with respect to assert 2 and declare 5 of the plaintiff’s declaration is dismissed.
“The exception with respect to claims 3 and 4 is upheld; however, the plaintiff is granted leave to amend its declaration within 10 days from the date of this judgment to clarify the specific duty breached and the precise loss incurred,” Justice Mambara acknowledged.
“The matter, together with any amended pleadings, shall proceed to trial on the substantive points as initially set out, in accordance with the instructions given by Zhou J.
“Costs of these proceedings shall be awarded as costs in the cause.”
