Three firms hired to distribute beer maker Heineken’s products across
East Africa want the defence the firm has filed in a distribution
dispute struck out. FILE Photo/COURTESY
Three firms
hired to distribute beer maker Heineken’s products across East Africa
want the defence the firm has filed in a distribution dispute struck
out.
Maxam Ltd, Uganda’s Modern Lane Ltd and Tanzania’s Olepasu Ltd have claimed that Heineken International BV, Heineken Brouwerijen BV and their local arm Heineken East Africa Import, have filed their separate defences out of the time allocated by court and should not be accommodated.
The trio argues that Heineken has also not provided sufficient reasons for the long delay in complying with the court orders. The court had directed the firm and its local subsidiary to file its defence by June 16, but this was not done until August 11, 2016.
“The three purported amended defences are in blatant contravention of the mandatory provisions of civil procedure rules. We are, therefore, unable to file any reply as required under the same rules and the three amended defences should therefore be struck out,” say the distributors through lawyer Philip Nyachoti.
The High Court had earlier this year granted orders stopping Heineken from terminating a multimillion-shilling contract signed with the three companies to distribute the brand in East Africa until the application is heard and determined.
The distributors’ case is that the manufacturer had given them a notice of intention to terminate a contract entered into in January 2013 without following the right procedure.
Heineken says the termination is aimed at deleting the exclusivity clause in the current contracts to open up the distribution of its products across the region to more firms that are willing to partner with it.
Heineken has maintained that the increase in its turnover has been mainly because of its own management of sub-distributors.
Maxam Ltd, Uganda’s Modern Lane Ltd and Tanzania’s Olepasu Ltd have claimed that Heineken International BV, Heineken Brouwerijen BV and their local arm Heineken East Africa Import, have filed their separate defences out of the time allocated by court and should not be accommodated.
The trio argues that Heineken has also not provided sufficient reasons for the long delay in complying with the court orders. The court had directed the firm and its local subsidiary to file its defence by June 16, but this was not done until August 11, 2016.
“The three purported amended defences are in blatant contravention of the mandatory provisions of civil procedure rules. We are, therefore, unable to file any reply as required under the same rules and the three amended defences should therefore be struck out,” say the distributors through lawyer Philip Nyachoti.
The High Court had earlier this year granted orders stopping Heineken from terminating a multimillion-shilling contract signed with the three companies to distribute the brand in East Africa until the application is heard and determined.
The distributors’ case is that the manufacturer had given them a notice of intention to terminate a contract entered into in January 2013 without following the right procedure.
Heineken says the termination is aimed at deleting the exclusivity clause in the current contracts to open up the distribution of its products across the region to more firms that are willing to partner with it.
Heineken has maintained that the increase in its turnover has been mainly because of its own management of sub-distributors.
No comments :
Post a Comment