This is an application in terms of s 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07], (hereinafter called “the Act”) for the liquidation of the first respondent on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. The applicant avers that there is a deadlock between its members and directors. In addition, it is submitted that the forth respondent is dissipating the company’s assets, as well as selling assets in its name, thereby creating obligations which the company is unable to fulfill. It has been brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who... More
This application was filed in terms of section 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] (“the Act”), for the liquidation of Greynut Investments (Pvt) Ltd (“the first respondent”) on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. It was brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who held 70% shares in the first respondent. The application is opposed by the fourth and fifth respondents. In her opposition, the fourth respondent states that she the Chief Executive Officer and co-director of the first respondent, and that she has a shareholding of 30%.... More
The applicant in casu seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this Court’s Judgement which dismissed his appeal. The application for leave to appeal was opposed. The respondent argued that the applicant’s grounds of appeal do not raise any questions of law. Further, the application was resisted on the basis that the intended grounds of appeal were not concise and that they were long and rumbling. More
1 This is an application for review of the proceedings of the disciplinary authority. Those proceedings were subject of an internal appeal which appeal upheld the proceedings. More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its Concentrator Manager. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against him it being alleged that he had wrongfully and unlawfully made personal purchases using the company system without the requisite authority to do so. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Appeals Committee did not meet the desired results as that Committee upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Appellant has approached this Court for relief. More
The material background facts to the matter are as follows. The 1st Respondent on 5 May 2021. referred to Applicant a claim for unfair dismissal. This was based on allegations that he had been verbally dismissed by 2nd Respondent’s General Manager. The Applicant submitted before Applicant that he had been employed as Operations Compliance Manager. He had worked for 2nd Respondent for more than 34 years. He was due to retire in November 2020 after attaining the age of 65 years. He was however verbally terminated on 30 April 2020. Applicant was therefore claiming an unfair termination as the 2nd... More
This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant seeks an order on the following terms:
“Interim relief sought
That pending the determination of this matter, the applicant is granted the following relief:
1. The 1st and 2nd respondents and all those claiming through them be and are hereby ordered to suspend all mining activities at Parameter B 16 to 19 and to vacate the same forthwith.
2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents be and are hereby ordered to provide the applicant with protection and ensure that applicant is granted access to its Parameter B16 to B19 mining claims Inyathi. More
