{"issue_text":"Whether the diesel was subject to additional duty under S.I 10 of 2019","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Statutory Instruments came into effect after contract completion, ownership had passed"}
{"issue_text":"Whether there were delivery timelines agreed between the parties","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No evidence of delivery timelines in correspondence, first delivery took 26 days"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in granting positive relief to respondent","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent filed no counter-claim, only a plea"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Appellants purchased 150,000 litres of diesel from respondent for $201,000 in November 2018. Only 30,000 litres were delivered, leaving 120,000 litres outstanding. When Statutory Instruments 9 and 10 of 2019 came into effect in January 2019, respondent refused to deliver remaining fuel unless appellant paid additional duty. High Court dismissed specific performance claim and cancelled contract.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases