Dowans: Another Richmond in making?

[BAK]

Dowans suffers 3bn/- penalty former Richmonduli
Daily News Reporter
Daily News; Thursday,October 04, 2007 @00:02

TANZANIA Electric Supply Company (Tanesco) has asked 2.43 million US dollars (about 3.06bn/-) payment in penalties from Dowans Holdings, following the firm's failure to fulfil its contractual obligations.

Dowans Holdings entered into an agreement with Tanesco to supply and install gas based generation plants at Ubungo that were supposed to become operational on February 2.

Tanesco Managing Director Dr Idris Rashidi said in a statement yesterday that the amount required was cumulative penalties Dowans owes the power utility firm following its failure to attain Commercial Operation Date (COD).

Dr Rashidi said Dowans Holdings only achieved COD yesterday, instead of February 2. "This means it achieved COD 234 days behind the schedule," he said.

He said the penalty was in line with the agreement between the two parties which imposed a daily penalty of 10,000 US dollars as liquidated damages if COD is not achieved as agreed.

"The penalty is calculated from the date when the plant had to be commissioned up to the actual date when the plant is commissioned," said the Tanesco boss, adding that he will request the government to deduct the amount from monthly capacity charges, starting this month.

Tanesco entered into Emergency Power Purchase Agreement with M/S Richmond Development Company of USA on June 23, last year, in which the latter undertook to supply and install 100 MW gas based generation plants at Ubungo.

The contract was among measures taken by the government and Tanesco to mitigate the poor generation condition which faced the country due to poor rains.

However, in December last year, M/S Richmond sought TANESCO's consent to assign the contract to another company, namely M/S Dowans Holdings of United Arab Emirates, which assumed all contractual obligations and responsibilities vested upon M/S Richmond.

M/S Dowans however failed to commission the 100 MW plant in accordance with the terms of the Agreement for reasons that were not TANESCO's.

 

[Masatu]

Wow! Hongera Dr Rashid na kaza buti hapo hapo komaa mpaka walipe

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Mojawapo ya vitu vinavyoendelea kunishangaza siku hizi zote ni kwanini serikali yetu inajiuma uma kuvunja mkataba na Dowans. Hili halipaswi kuwa hivyo.

a. Imeweza kuthibitishwa kuwa kampuni iliyoingia Mkataba na Tanesco ya Richmond Development Company LLC haijawahi kusajiliwa Tanzania na haikupewa kibali cha uwekezaji.

b. Imeweza kuthibitishwa kupitia Kamati Teule ya Bunge hiyo kampuni yenyewe haipo jinsi ilivyotajwa na kimsingi ni kampuni hewa.

Hivyo kutokana na hayo mawili tu kuna mambo kadhaa ambayo tunaweza kuona yanafuatana.

1. Kanuni za kuingia mikataba zina presume mambo makubwa matatu; kwanza, anayeingia mkataba yupo, pili, aneyeingia mkataba ana uwezo wa kisheria kufanya hivyo, tatu anayeingia mkataba anafanya hivyo kiuaminifu kuwa ataweza kuutekeleza.

2. Kwa vile tumeshaona hapo juu kuwa aliyeingia mkataba wa Richmond hakuwepo na hakuwa na nguvu za kufanya hivyo basi kile kilichoingiwa hakiwezi hata chembe kuwa mkataba.

3. Mkataba unaoingiwa kiudanganyifu (fraudelent) siyo mkataba halali.

Kwa vile Kamati Teule ya Bunge imeweza kuthibitisha pasipo shaka kuwa Mkataba wa Richmond uliingiwa kwa njia ya udanganyifu na kampuni ambayo haipo na isiyo na uwezo wa kuingia mkataba huo hivyo HAKUNA KITU KAMA MKATABA WA RICHMOND kwa sababu huwezi kuingia Mkataba na kampuni ambayo HAIPO.

Kanuni hii ndiyo inaongoza hata annulments za ndoa kwamba endapo mtu anaingia kwenye ndoa (mkataba) kwa njia ya udanganyifu au pasipo uhalali wa kufanya hivyo (kama ndoa ya baba na binti) basi ndoa hiyo inaweza kuwa annulled (maana yake siyo tu inafutwa, bali haikuwepo in the first place)

4. Kwa vile kampuni ya Richmond haipo, na kwa vile mkataba wenyewe nao haupo basi Dowans hawawezi kurithi kitu ambacho HAKIPO.

Hivyo, serikali haihitaji kwenda mahali popote ni kuwaambia Dowans park your stuff and leave kwa sababu HAKUNA mkataba kati yako na TANESCO. Hili halihitaji uwe mtaalamu wa fizikia kuweza kuliona. Vinginevyo tumeliwa.

 

[Mpaka Kieleweke]

Hapo ndipo unaweza kuchoka kabisa , ukitaka kuona vituko vya Bongo basi jaribu kumuuliza mwnasheria mkuu wa serikali utasikia visingizio kibao....

Hawa wanajuana na huu ulikuwa ni mrija wao sasa wakiufunga maana yake ni kuwa watakufa kwani haka kamrija kalikuwa ni kwa ajili ya kuwapatia pumzi sasa unataka wakose pumzi?

 

[eddy]

Heshima mkuu, tuliambiwa kuwa hii kampuni ni ya Kuwait hapa olenaiko anachakutueleza asituletee porojo na kama email address wanayotumia ni ya caspian basi kuna mambo hapa! ilianza somalia ikaja kenya sasa ni zamu ya tz.

MP naona amekarishwa kwenye kigoda sijui anaroda au anazindikwa!

 

[Nyambala]

Kufuta mkataba huu mimi nadhani iko ndani ya uwezo wa bodi ya Tanesco maybe + wizara ya zee la buzwagi. Lakini kwa bongo usije kushangaa kwamba ikulu lazima itoe go ahead kwanza!!!!!!!!

Sasa ikulu kunani???????????? JK mweeeeee!!!!!!!

 

[Mwafrika wa Kike]

Kufuta mkataba huu mimi nadhani iko ndani ya uwezo wa bodi ya Tanesco maybe + wizara ya zee la buzwagi. Lakini kwa bongo usije kushangaa kwamba ikulu lazima itoe go ahead kwanza!!!!!!!!

Sasa ikulu kunani???????????? JK mweeeeee!!!!!!!

Huu mkataba unaweza kabisa kuvunjwa ila ni vile hakuna nia ya kufanya hivyo kutoka upande wa wenzetu!

 

[NakuliliaTanzania]

Huu mkataba unaweza kabisa kuvunjwa ila ni vile hakuna nia ya kufanya hivyo kutoka upande wa wenzetu!

NA sio kuuvunja tu bali warudishe fedha zote walizokwisha kulipwa pamoja na fidia! milioni 152 kwa siku zi mchezo!

Hivi, niulize wandugu, hadi sasa hizo milioni 152 zinaenda akaunti ya nani maana kampuni haipo! kwa nini anayekamata huo mshiko asikamatwe chap chap? kuna kigugumizi gani hapo kama kila kitu ni hewa? huyo mhasibu wa TANESCO anayelipa ilo bulungutu kila mwezi haoni aibu? kwa nini asicahe mara moja huo mchezo mchafu?

 

[Nemesis]

Huu mkataba unaweza kabisa kuvunjwa ila ni vile hakuna nia ya kufanya hivyo kutoka upande wa wenzetu!

Wenzetu ni nani? wana JF naomba mnisadie hivi Wananchi wakitaka kuihoji Serikali ni mpaka bungeni? au hata habari zinazoandikwa kwenye vyombo vya habari, zinatakiwa kutolewa maelezo? mimi nadhani Serikali inapaswa kujibu hoja za wananchi kila siku.

Naomba waandishi wa habari waliandike hili na kwamba watz tunataka majibu haraka. Hili ni suala nyeti la kitaifa, huyu Waziri mpya, alipopewa wizara ya Madini alisema anaangalia uwezekano wa kuvunja mkataba na Dowans.

Hivi mpaka leo bado hajaangalia? au ameona giza? inapaswa atueleze Watz ameona nini.

Heko Mkjj kwa hoja hii, tuivalie kijeshi mpaka ipate majibu. Falsafa ya kasi mpya inapasya kuonekana hapa.

 

[Rev. Kishoka]

Katrika utetezi wake, Lowassa alidai kuwa Bwna Luhanjo alikuwa kwenye vikao hivi vya Umeme wa dharura. Swali ni kuwa Luhanjo ambaye ni Katibu Mkuu wa IKULU alikuwa kwenye hivi vikao kwa minajili gani?

Does it mean the President himself was fully aware of the Richmond saga? if he had all the details and even doubts raised by Lowassa asking to revoke the contract why did he sleep on this? why didn't he ask second opinion from AG or parliament to have a commitee to investigate the whole saga?

What did Kikwete know and what didn't he do? If he failed to act swiftly even when he had that famous interview on January of 2007 of "msabaha atajinyonga" why didn't he use his powers to stop the nation from bleeding economically due to such bad contract in the middle of energy crisis?

Okay I am a bit too harsh kwa mwenye tabasamu, question is, Parliamentary committee and even Lowassa are telling the nation that serikali entered a contract with a dubious company a non existing company, question is why is it taking so long for Government to halt the contract that was passed to Dowans? if Richmond asssigned a void contract, why is Serikali and tanesco still paying for it?

Siku njema!

 

[Koba]

Where is Zengo Mipinda? nilifikiri hii ndio ingekuwa ya kwanza kwa sababu Richmond saga ndio ilimpa kazi,lakini nasikia yuko vijijini kutoa thanks kwa baba na mama na slogans zake za kosa si kosa ila kurudia kosa....kazi kweli kweli!

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Baba wa Taifa alisema hivi pale Mbeya (ile Mei Mosi ya kukumbukwa) "Mtu mwenye akili, ambaye anajua kuwa na wewe una akili, akikushauri jambo la kipumbavu, na wewe ukalikubali, atakudharau"

Kama hakuna kampuni = hakuna mkataba
Kama hakuna mkataba = Dowans hawakurithi kitu (ni kama picha ya samaki ukutani)
Kama Dowans hawakurithi kitu = fedha wanazolipwa wanalipwa nje ya uhalali

Hivyo basi; serikali iwaambie Dowans kwa furaha (siyo kwa masikitiko) kuwa serikali imesitisha malipo yote na inataka fedha zote zilizolipwa hadi sasa zirudishwe kwani imegundulika kuwa hakuna Mkataba. Dowans wakubali wakikataa wafilisiwe liwe fundisho kwa wengine!

 

[maya]

dowans hawawezi kutimuliwa kwani pesa wanazoendelea kulipwa na tanesco,ndio hizo wanazotupiga nazo changa la macho eti kuna pesa zinarudishwa na mafisadi,wakati ndio hizo hizo.mbona basi kigugumizi kuwasema hao wanaozirudisha huko BOT!!!!

 

[Gembe]

Heshima Mbele,

Mie siataki kuvunja mkataba kabla ya kuwajua wamiliki wa RDC ni kina nani haswa?Je ni nani alilipwa hizo pesa,tuache kuzungusha maneno maneno tu.Hapo ndio tutakapooona na kioo cha Lowassa.

Suala la pili nalopendekeza ni kufungulikwa kwa kesi ya kosa la jinai kwa wahusika wote wa Suala la RDC,Kuanzia Waziri mkuu asiye Mstaafu Mhe. Lowassa(MB).Kamati nzima ya National Negotiation Team ikongozwa na mzee mmoja aliyekuwa Wizara ya Fedha na sasa kaamishiwa Ikulu.

Napendekeza pia watu wa BRELA wachukuliwe hatua kwa kushindwa kufuatilia kampuni ambazo ni feki na ni jukumu lao,Naomba wawajibishwe.

Nne naomba Mkurugenzi wa TIC awajibishwe,na kwanini mtu Mkurugenzi ankuwa na kiburi kiasi hiki,ana nini??Yelo Masai Naiko??

Tano,Zile Pesa zilizolipwa naomba wagawiwe wakulima wote wa vijijini wanunue matrekta!

 

[Mbangaizaji]

Mwanakijiji umenikumbusha mbali enzi zile nilikuwa nosomaga sheria. Maana RichMunduli haina tofauti na kuingia mkataba na muuza madawa ya kulevya.In short hakukuwa na mkataba na hakuna wa kwenda mahakani maana wote hamna haki.Hiyo assignment letter yenyewe ya Tanesco nimeiona nimecheka kweli kweli.

Ila interesting ni kuwa baada ya Tanesco kushtuka kuwa Rich Mond ni kanyanga . Waka uasign mkataba Dowans(Third party) in mutual agreement. Sasa Dowans wangeweza kusue Tanesco kwa kutumia third party rights lakini hii kwenye hili haiwezekani maana Dowans ni "Incidental beneficiary"

Kwa wale wanaopenda kujua kidogo kuhusu third party righs on law of contract angalia hapa chini.

A third party beneficiary, in the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been a party to the contract. This right arises where the third party is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to an incidental beneficiary. It vests when the third party relies on or assents to the relationship, and gives the third party the right to sue either the promisor or the promisee of the contract, depending on the circumstances under which the relationship was created.

In English law, the doctrine was not recognised at common law, but a similar concept was introduced with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.


Intended vs. incidental beneficiary
In order for a third party beneficiary to have any rights under the contract, he must be an intended beneficiary, as opposed to an incidental beneficiary. The burden is on the third party to plead and prove that he was indeed an intended beneficiary.

Incidental beneficiary
An incidental beneficiary is a party who stands to benefit from the execution of the contract, although that was not the intent of either contracting party. For example, if party A hires party B to renovate party A's house, and insists that party B use a particular house painter—party C—because that house painter has an excellent reputation, then the house painter is an incidental beneficiary. Neither party A nor party B is entering into the contract with the particular intent to benefit party C. Party A simply wants his house properly renovated; party B simply wants to be paid to do the renovation. If the contract is breached by either party in a way that results in party C never being hired for the job, party C nonetheless has no rights to recover anything under the contract. Similarly, if party A were to promise to buy party B a Cadillac, and were to later go back on that promise, General Motors would have no grounds upon which to recover for the lost sale.

Intended beneficiary
The distinction that creates an intended beneficiary is that one party - called the promisee - makes an agreement to provide some consideration to a second party - called the promisor - in exchange for the promisor's agreement to provide some product, service, or support to the third party beneficiary named in the contract. The promisee must have an intention to benefit the third party - but this requirement has an unusual meaning under the law. Although there is a presumption that the promisor intends to promote the interests of the third party in this way, if party A contracts with party B to have a thousand killer bees delivered to the home of Party A's worst enemy, party C, then C is still considered to be the intended beneficiary of that contract.

There are two common situations in which the intended beneficiary relationship is created. One is the creditor beneficiary, which is created where party A owes some debt to party C, and party A agrees to provide some consideration to party B in exchange for party B's promise to pay party C some part of the amount owed.

The other is the donee beneficiary, which is created where party A wishes to make a gift to party C, and party A agrees to provide some consideration to party B in exchange for party B's promise to pay party C the amount of the gift. Under old common law principles, the donee beneficiary actually had a greater claim to the benefits this created; however, such distinctions have since been abolished.

Vesting of rights
Once the beneficiary's rights have vested, the original parties to the contract are both bound to perform the contract. Any effort by the promisor or the promisee to rescind or modify the contract at that point are void. Indeed, if the promisee changed his mind and offered to pay the promisor money not to perform, the third party could sue the promisee for tortious interference with the third party's contract rights.

There are three tests used to determine whether the third party beneficiary's rights have vested:

if the beneficiary knows of and has detrimentally relied on the rights created;
if the beneficiary expressly assented to the contract at the request of one of the parties; or
if the beneficiary files a lawsuit to enforce the contract

Breach and defenses
Where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached by the non-performance of the promisor, the beneficiary can sue the promisor for the breach just as any party to a contract can sue the other. Because the rights of the third party are defined by the contract created between the promisor and the promisee, the promisor may assert against the beneficiary any defenses to the contract that could be asserted against the promisee. These include all of the traditional basis by which the formation of a contract may be challenged: lack of capacity, lack of consideration, the Statute of Frauds, etc.; and all of the traditional bases by which non-performance on the contract may be excused: failure of consideration, impossibility, illegality, frustration of purpose, etc.

Because the promisor can assert any defenses that could be asserted against the promisee, the beneficiary also becomes liable for counterclaims on the contract that the promisor could establish against the promisee. This liability can never exceed the amount that the promisor owes under the contract. In other words, if the promisor is owed money by the promisee, any award to the third party for the promisor's failure to perform can be reduced by the amount thus owed. If the promisor is owed more than the value of the contract, the beneficiary's recovery will be reduced to nothing (but the third party can never be made to assume an actual debt).

A creditor beneficiary can sue both the promisor and the promisee, but the beneficiary cannot recover against both. If the suit is successful against one party to the contract, the other party will be dismissed. Because the creditor beneficiary is receiving the performance of the promisor in order to fulfill the promisee's debt, the failure of the promisor to perform means that the beneficiary can still sue the promisee to recover the preexisting debt. The failure of performance simply means that the debt has never been paid.

A donee beneficiary can not sue the promisee, because the promisee's act is gratuitous. Courts simply will not allow a party who has been promised a gift to sue to compel delivery of the gift. However, if the beneficiary has relied to his detriment on the promisee's assertion that the promisor would perform, the beneficiary may sue the promisee under a promissory estoppel theory.

Rights that accrue to the promisee
The promisee can also sue the promisor for failing to pay the third party beneficiary. Under the common law, such suits were barred, but courts have since determined that the promisee can sue for specific performance of the contract, provided that the beneficiary has not already sued the promisor. Furthermore, if the promisee was in debt to a creditor beneficiary, and the failure of the promisor to perform caused the promisee to be held liable for that debt, the promisee can sue to recover the amount of the debt
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_beneficiary

 

[zomba]

Hili la kuvunja huu mkataba mimi naliunga mkono mia kwa mia lakini walitazame vizuri lisije lika re-bounce na kututia kwenye matatizo mengine kama ya IPTL.

 

[tibwilitibwili]

Hili la kuvunja huu mkataba mimi naliunga mkono mia kwa mia lakini walitazame vizuri lisije lika re-bounce na kututia kwenye matatizo mengine kama ya IPTL.

Unaambiwa hakuna mkataba na hawa jamaa sasa wewe unalia wavunje Mkataba upi ?

 

[MamaParoko]

serikali tuko curious, tumechoka tunataka majibu, we"re fed up, yaani hadi nashindwa maneno ya kuelezea frustration zangu na hii hali, we want answers, we want action hatutaki blah blah, hivi lakini sauti moja moja ya kina siye kapuku maji hivi serikali inaweza kuchukulia uzito au washazoea kelele za chura hazimzuii tembo.....tufanyeje tupate sauti moja ya kitaifa itakayoitia presha serikali ili itimize matakwa yetu?

 

[zomba]

Unaambiwa hakuna mkataba na hawa jamaa sasa wewe unalia wavunje Mkataba upi ?

wewe unasema hakuna mkataba posts zingine hapo juu zinasema "huu ni mkataba" sasa hizo hujaziona au vipi?

 

[Kimbembe]

Na Restuta James

Jumla ya Sh. bilioni 75.2 zimelipwa na serikali kwa kampuni ya Richmond/ Dowans kama malipo ya kuweka mitambo nchini (capacity charge), kati Desemba, 2006 na sasa.

Kadhalika, kampuni hiyo imelipwa dola milioni 2.4 za Marekani (karibu sawa na Sh. bilioni 2.5) kama fedha za kununua gesi inayoendesha mitambo hiyo.

Hayo yalielezwa jana jijini Dar es Salaam na Ofisa Mkuu wa masuala ya Fedha wa Shirika la Umeme Nchini (Tanesco), Bw. Jamhuri Ngelime wakati wa mahojiano maalum na Nipashe ofisini kwake.
Alisema malipo hayo yanafanywa kwa ushirikiano wa Tanesco na serikali.

Alifafanua kuwa, shirika lake linalipia gharama za gesi inayofua umeme unaozalishwa na Dowans wakati serikali inalipia gharama za capacity charge.

Bw. Ngelime alisema jumla ya malipo yote kwa kampuni hiyo hadi sasa, ni dola milioni 63.9 za Kimarekani (karibu sawa na Sh. bilioni 77.7).

``Tunalipia vitu viwili, capacity charge na gesi inayofua umeme ambayo inatoka Songosongo,`` alifafanua na kuongeza ``tunaendelea kulipa maana tuna mkataba na kampuni hii na hiyo capacity charge inalipwa kila siku na kama haitafanyika hivyo Dowans wanakuwa wamechelewesha invoice,`` alisema.

Aliongeza kuwa, malipo ya awali yalifanyika Desemba, 2006 ambapo kampuni ya Richmond ililipwa dola 200,000 za Kimarekani na baadaye malipo yalihamishwa kwa Dowans baada ya kuhamishia mkataba.

Aidha, mwaka 2006, serikali iliingia mkataba na kampuni ya Richmond kwa malengo ya kuzalisha umeme wa dharura kipindi nchi ilipokumbwa na uhaba wa maji kwenye mabwawa yanayozalisha nishati hiyo.

Kampuni hiyo ilishindwa kutekeleza mkataba huo ambapo baadaye ilihamishia kwa kampuni ya Dowans.
Hata hivyo, mkataba huo ni moja kati ya mikataba tata inayoelezwa kulitia hasara taifa.


SOURCE: Nipashe