BPOPF sued for P95,000

Tsaone Basimanebotlhe | Friday September 1, 2017 14:28

 

YG Infinite has since written to BPOPF demanding compensation after the pension fund decided not to sign the lease agreement. The pension fund has since claimed they do not owe the company any monies as they were merely enquiring about the premises.

In their letter through Manyapedza Attorneys, YG Infinite states that on or about May 17, 2017, BPOPF under the hand of one Kagiso Potongwane, who held himself out to be the Human Capital Director of and authorised to bind the organisation, requested to take occupation of client's premises being Unit A, 14th Floor, i­Towers North, Plot 54368, CBD, Gaborone from May 22, 2017 and for three months thereafter.

'The client engaged our services to draw up an appropriate short­term lease which lease was availed to yourselves on 19th May 2017. However, your Administration Officer and Legal Services Officer wished to have certain amendments effected to the said lease agreement as presented to yourselves, chief amongst which was to amend the date of occupation to 5 June 2017 from 22 May 2017 and amending the signatory on yourselves from Potongwane to the Principal Officer,'reads the letter.

Manyepedza states that the said amendments were effected and YG Infinite signed its part of the said lease on or before May 30, 2017 including delivery of the invoice requested from it.

However, neither was the invoice paid nor occupation of the said premises taken on June 5, 2017.

The letter says the conduct by BPOPF has caused client loss in the sum of P93, 698.00 which yourself is liable to compensate client for.

However BPOPF legal service manager Kwenantle Otukile said, “we confirm, as previously communicated to your client that we have withdrawn our interest in office space unit A, 14th floor, i-Towers north, plot 54368, CBD, Gaborone. The letter from our Human Capital Director was a non–binding expression of interest. Your client knew that the preliminary discussions were subject to internal approvals. It was clear that the parties had common understanding that they were not bound until a written contract was reduced to writing and signed by authorised representatives of both parties”.

The letter says incidentally they note YG Infinite concession that client was informed regarding the identity of the BPOPF personnel who had authority to approve the proposed transaction.

“The crux of the matter is that the said approvals were not obtained. Your client was regularly updated on developments both before and after delivery of its signed document/pro-forma invoice. In particular, your client was informed that the principal officer was unavailable and the matter would be discussed at executive on her return. Your client, having full knowledge of our business constraints and having the benefit of legal representation, accepted the risk that there would be further delays and that may not be granted,” Otukile said.

The letter says their position is YG Infinite claim for compensation is misconceived.