TCN Files N300m Counter Claims against Firm for Alleged Contract Default
Chineme Okafor
The Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) at the weekend in Abuja disclosed that it has filed a N300 million counter claim in the law court against Cartlark International Limited for allegedly failing to repeatedly execute the transmission contract awarded to it in 2006.
The TCN said the firm was in 2006 awarded the contract to build its Damaturu/Gombe 330/132kV transmission substation and line bay extension, and was adequately paid for the job.
TCN however, said the firm failed to complete the job within the agreed project time frame and subsequently took it (TCN) to court 12 years after it tried to retrieve the project from the firm.
TCN’s Managing Director, Mr. Usman Gur Mohammed, told journalists at the sidelines of a dinner the company held for past senior management staff of defunct Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) that while Cartlark sued it, it subsequently filed a counter claims against it and was praying the court of law to grant it a compensation worth N300 million.
He noted that the TCN had however completed and energised the transmission substation after it retrieved it from Cartlark.
Mohammed, who explained that the dinner was set up to get valuable advice from past senor staff of the PHCN on how best to implement its Transmission Rehabilitation and Expansion Programme (TREP), noted that it has equally stopped contract variations in which case project terms are altered mostly on occasions when contractors do not meet up with agreed timelines.
“Those contracts actually have expired – contracts for supply and installation of 330kV substations are supposed last for about 18 months – those contracts, particularly the one in Damaturu was awarded in 2006 which is about 12 years and has expired,” Mohammed said.
He further stated: “We don’t cancel non-existent contracts, but write to tell them that the contracts have expired and we are not willing to extend them. The person (Cartlark) decided to go to court and we followed but we know there is no case because a court cannot force you to extend a contract that is non-existent, and that is the reason why the contractor is unruly.”