The oil company says there was no contractual breach between the parties after Sheer Cliff filed a lawsuit against the oil company on claims that the petroleum company unlawfully terminated their contract and in turn has future losses. Sheer Cliff, an oil delivery truck company was contracted by Kwa Nokeng for transportation of oil with its trucks until termination on April 3, 2025. In turn, the delivery truck company filed a lawsuit on two claims seeking compensation in the total sum of P42.7 million for unlawful termination of contract as depicted by the conduct of the defendant in their engagements and for loss of future earnings due to the defendant’s unlawful termination of the agreement. Kwa Nokeng in their replying papers said the agreement remained in place between the parties until at least April 3,2025, when it delivered the Termination Notice and it accepted the Sheer Cliff's repudiation and terminated the agreement lawfully. “In the alternative Kwa Nokeng (to such extent necessary) invoked clause 11.1 of the agreement and gave 30 days notice of termination.
The truck compnay is not entitled to payment of the amounts alleged or any amounts at all, or to payment for alleged loss of earnings, under any claim,” read the compnay’s documents. The oil company challenged the truck delivery company defendant to show proof of its alleged entitlement to payment and the quantification. It explained that although the agreement is to be considered in its entirety, some provisions of the agreement are of particular importance for purposes of its defence one that clearly states that it is under no obligation to proceed with or elect the plaintiff's tankers and accordingly, Kwa Nokeng would instruct the plaintiff as and when it required the use of its tankers. More over that Kwa Nokeng in terms of the same clause has acknowledged that it shall have no claim against the defendant, to have the latter nominate its tankers. The oil company further said it has never prohibited the trucks from providing its services to other fuel suppliers and that the plaintiff has accordingly misunderstood part of the agreement which is clear to provide the circumstances and manner in which the agreement may be terminated by either party. “It is only on April 3, 2025, that the company elected to terminate the agreement in accordance with clause 11 and for that reason denies that the plaintiff's claims are valid in law or substance.
