(1) The defendants' witnesses lacked expertise and technical knowhow despite holding senior management positions in the 1st defendant and being involved in the project. (See para 57 of the Judgment of the High Court).

(2) The plaintiff's witnesses, PW2 and PW3 demonstrated that they had the technical expertise and knowhow of the working of the Project. (See para 58 of the Judgment of the High Court).

(3) The plaintiff's evidence that the POC was a stand-alone system was to be preferred over the defendants' contention that the POC was an end-to-end broadcast solution. (See para 59 of the Judgment of the High Court).

(4) Versions 3.8(a) and 3.8(b) are different. (See para 61 of the Judgment of the High Court).

Findings Of The Court Of Appeal

[19] The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the defendants' appeal. The learned judges of the Court of Appeal in their judgment stated that the crucial issue raised in the case was, what was the correct test protocol to be used: version 3.8(a) or version 3.8(b). (See para 53 of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal).

[20] The Court of Appeal took note of the learned High Court Judge's finding that the plaintiff's witnes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document