{"issue_text":"Whether the appellant's claim was affected by s 22(4)(a) of the Finance (No.2) Act converting USD obligations to RTGS at 1:1 rate","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Contract executed in May 2018, claim made in October 2020, SI 33 of 2019 promulgated February 2019"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the liability arose in 2018 when the contract was executed or in 2020 when the respondent defaulted","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Contract executed May 2018, payments defaulted February 2020"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant construction company entered into a contract with the respondent in May 2018 for construction work valued at US$36,962. The respondent made payments until February 2020 when she defaulted. The appellant sued for the outstanding balance of US$8,538.45. The magistrates' court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court allowed the respondent's appeal, holding that the claim was affected by s 22(4)(a) of the Finance (No.2) Act which converted the liability to RTGS dollars at 1:1 rate.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases