Workers win Merlin management wrangle 

Source: Workers win Merlin management wrangle – NewsDay Zimbabwe March 4, 2019


The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Zimbabwe Textile Workers’ Union which had sought to have Merlin and Merspin Limited put under corporate rescue proceedings.

The ruling gives Tudor House Consultants boss Cecil Madondo relief to continue presiding over the companies.

Madondo had acted as judicial manager for Merlin since 2011, but a High Court ruling last December by Justice Martin Makonese observed that there was a disconnection in the name of the company Madondo had been managing and the actual company registered with the Companies Registry.

Justice Makonese declared Merlin Limited as a fictitious and non-existent company.

In November last year, Justice Makonese ruled that the judgment of the court in HC 2353/11, which placed Merlin (Private) Limited under judicial management, did not in any way affect the status of Merspin Limited.

The Zimbabwe Textile Workers’ Union filed an application with the Bulawayo High Court on February 26, 2019 for the placement of Merlin and Merspin under supervision under case number HC397/19.

The workers said the application will “enable continuation of the foundation and work commenced by Dr Cecil Madondo of Tudor House Consultants (Pvt) Limited”.

Workers also said the application sought to correct citational errors on the name of the entity that was placed under judicial management under case number
HC 2353/11.

The High Court responded in the positive.

According to a notice seen by NewsDay, the two companies — Merlin with registration number 473/95/1956 and Merspin with registration number 63/88 — are now
under corporate rescue proceedings.

“Notice is hereby given that a court application for the placement of the above mentioned companies under supervision was filed with the High Court of Zimbabwe, Bulawayo on February 26, 2019 under case No HC397/19,” part of the notice reads.

“It follows, therefore, that corporate rescue proceedings have commenced in terms of Section 124 (2) (b) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6, 07].”

The notice also says that “no action or proceedings shall be proceeded with or commenced against the companies except by leave of the High Court and subject to such terms as the court may impose”.