@ Selah
anyway the court case is of about 40m. the amount is not the issue but how such a company handles some issues which need not be public.
WHEN A COMPANY CONTRCATS, IT MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE CONTRACT TERMS HAVE BEEN MET BEFORE PAYMENT IS MADE. ALL THAT EQUITY IS TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE VALUE FOR MONEY. SIO KULIPA TU OVIOOVIO.
AND SINCE EQUITY IS BIG, THE MEDIA IS BOUND TO PICK AND REPORT THESE CASES.


Another thing is those small, small complaint like failure to honor payment for services offered is a warning sign of a company which is ineffective or untrustworthy And caution should be exercised when dealing with it.
DITTO TO THE ABOVE. HATA WEWE I DONT THINK YOU CAN ACCEPT TO PAY FOR A CONTRCAT YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH. YOU MUST GET VALUE FOR MONEY. ARE YOU SAYING THAT FOR THE SAKE OF A GOOD NAME, EQUITY SHOULD NOT QUESTION WHAT IS DELIVERED UNDER CONTRCATS IT HAS ENTERRED INTO?


Apart from the passaris case their was the cdsc case.
AND THIS WAS SORTED OUT LEGALLY WITH NO ILL EFFECTS ON THE BANK. THIS IS THE WAY TO GO.

Bwenyenye
The views expressed here by some of the contributors are clea;ry tribalistic and need to be replied to. The original post was very okay but some of the views cant just go unreplied to. We need to put these contributors who see everything through the tribal lense in their place. Kama ni discussion, lets discuss but no negative ethinicity.