The applicants have jointly approached this court for an order in the following terms:
1. That the confirmation of the liquidation and distribution account by the third respondent in respect of Shagelok Chemicals (Private) Limited (in liquidation) be and is hereby set aside.
2. That the third respondent be and is hereby directed to re-open the account referred to above for inspection for a period of 14 days with effect from the date of judgment in this matter. More
At the hearing of this matter the plaintiff bank was in default. Mr Biti, for the defendant, sought and was granted leave to argue the matter on the merits. Judgment on the merits of the case was granted in favour of the defendant with costs. I indicated that my reasons for judgment would follow. More
The plaintiff, the Zimbabwe Development Bank, hereinafter referred to as the bank, issued summons out of this court on 17 December 2004 seeking, against the three defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, payment of $587 612 879.86 and interest thereon capitalized monthly at 1% per day calculated from the date of issue of summons to the date of full payment and costs of suit on a legal practitioner scale and collection commission as provided for under the Law Society of Zimbabwe By-laws 1982. On 6 January 2005, the defendants entered appearance in which they... More
On the 27th of January 2003, the plaintiff filed summons claiming payment in the sum of US$ 715,185.66, together with interest and costs on the higher scale. The defences proffered by the defendants are that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgement in United States dollars (US$) and that, in any event, they have already tendered payment in the Zimbabwe dollar ((ZW$) equivalent. More
Applicants seek for the placement of the first respondent under corporate rescue in terms of s121 (a) financially distressed, it having failed to pay accounts in terms of its obligations, and that justice and equity requires that first respondent be resuscitated or rescued given that there are reasonable prospects for such rescue. (i) (ii) (iii) of the Insolvency Act (Chapter 6:07) as read with s124 and 131, on the grounds that it is
First respondent opposes the application on the basis that it is not in financial distress, it having paid off all its creditors, and its board is now... More
