Redwing contract cancellation application dismissed 

Source: Redwing contract cancellation application dismissed – NewsDay Zimbabwe


THE High Court has dismissed an application filed by Probadek Investments to stop Redwing Mining Company from cancelling a mining contract between the two parties.

Probadek had approached the High Court saying it entered into a joint venture agreement with Redwing Mining on October 15, 2020 pertaining to a mining contract.

But in his ruling, High Court judge Justice Tawanda Chitapi said Probadek Investments was only granted exclusive rights to mine certain listed claims.

“The controversial company Probadek had resolved to sue the Metallon Corporation (Metallon) subsidiary based on rumours that the other tributors were carrying out mining activities and risked losing business after purchasing equipment worth US$345 000 as well as paying some creditors.

“It is of course false to state that the claims belonged to Probadek. The claims belong to (Redwing) with the second and third respondents (Prime Royal Africa) being granted rights to mine,” Justice Chitapi’s judgment read.

Probadek was also said to claimed that it had 100% ownership of King’s Daughter Mining, which is actually owned by Patricia Mutombgwera.

But it emerged during court proceedings that Probadek had failed to provide proof of funding, or US$2 million for the joint venture funding.

“In relation to the urgency of the matter being based … on the second and third respondents mining on the claims in dispute, the first respondent (Redwing) averred that no urgency arises … because as far back as December 2 (the previous year), Probadek was aware of the tribute agreements,” Justice Chitapi said.

“There is no reasonable explanation offered as to why the applicant did not sue the respondents immediately after it discovered the existence of the agreement(s) … which were obtained from the … corporate rescuer.”

Justice Chitapi said Probadek’s claims that it could not file an application in the absence of a board resolution were “unreasonable”, adding that the company had also failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable damage from the other firms’ deals.