Share sale agreementForeign currencyExchange control regulationsContract variationPrescription
Tags
Contract lawShare sale agreementForeign currency paymentExchange control regulations
legislation
Statutes Cited
Exchange Control Regulations
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred by ordering the appellant to pay the respondent US$200,000","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant admitted debt; addendum unsigned; contract required written variation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in ordering payment in United States Dollars","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Agreement denominated in US dollars; exchange control regulations"}
{"issue_text":"Who is liable for the costs and at what scale","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Partial success on appeal"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant and respondent, siblings, entered into a written agreement for sale of 10,000 shares in family company for US$240,000 payable in instalments. Appellant paid US$40,000 but failed to pay balance of US$200,000. Respondent sued. Appellant defended on grounds of prescription, illegality under exchange control regulations, and alleged compromise. High Court found for respondent. Appellant appealed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases