{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff provided professional services and is entitled to payment","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Plaintiff completed work and invoiced defendant; defendant acknowledged indebtedness"}
{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiff was obliged to comply with State Liabilities Act before issuing summons","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Defendant raised this as preliminary issue"}
{"issue_text":"Whether agreement is subject to Procurement Act provisions","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Value of contract was below tender threshold"}
{"issue_text":"Whether procurement procedures were complied with","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No evidence of compliance with sections 30, 31, 32"}
{"issue_text":"Whether agreement is enforceable despite non-compliance","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Contract performed by plaintiff; defendant benefited"}
{"issue_text":"Whether agreement was signed by authorized person","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Director of Works signed agreement; previous agreements signed similarly"}
{"issue_text":"Whether government is liable for payment","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Agreement between plaintiff and defendant only"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Plaintiff engineering company provided professional mechanical and electrical engineering services to defendant university under a written agreement dated 18 August 2013. After completion of work and submission of invoice for US$225,593.01, defendant acknowledged indebtedness but refused to pay, claiming the project was government-funded and procurement procedures were not followed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases