This is an opposed application for review of taxation proceedings made in terms of Rule 56(2) as read with Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and Rule 72 of the High Court Rules, 2021. On 23 February 2022 after considering written submissions by the applicant and both written and oral submissions by the second respondent’s counsel Mr. Madya, I delivered an ex-tempore judgment dismissing the application with costs. The applicant elected not to appear physically but opted in terms of s 29(4) of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13], to file written submissions. He has requested for written... More
The applicants in the above matters sought on an urgent basis similar relief by way of provisional orders. Although I heard each application separately andon different dates, the cause of action in each of the applications is substantially the same and the draft orders filed of each record are identical, word for word. More
The above matters have been consolidated in the interest of and at the behest of the parties. In this judgment I shall refer to the application under case number HC 5566/11 as “the first case” and the application under case number HC 5584/11 as “the second case.” More
The two cases were consolidated per request by counsels as the decision in one case affects the other. The parties are the same. In the first case the applicant is applying for registration of an arbitral award while the second matter is an application for setting aside of the same arbitral award handed by the Honourabe Arbitrator Justice NOVEMBER TAFUMA MTSHIYA (Retired judge) on the first of March 2017 in favour of applicant in HC 9484/17. More
The applicant received, by way of donation, 51% of the second respondent’s shares in 2011 through the shareholders agreement. This transaction shall be hereinafter called “the 2011 agreement” or the “shareholders agreement”. In 2016, Mr Mutanda sold his shares for the companies to the Government of Zimbabwe. According to the third respondent, the transaction saw the Government of Zimbabwe becoming the major shareholder in the second respondent. However, the applicant is disputing this. In 2020, the third respondent appointed board members for the second respondent. The applicant disputed this and initiated the arbitration proceedings through the letter dated 10 November... More
