Mohadi loses another court case

STATE Security minister Kembo Mohadi and a co-respondent, John Moyo have lost a case in which they illegally removed Reginald Dawson from being the Nerry Investments director.

Source: Mohadi loses another court case – NewsDay Zimbabwe November 21, 2016

BY SILAS NKALA

Mohadi and Moyo, on one hand, and Dawson have been locked in a five-year battle for the control of Nerry Investments.

The State Security minister and Moyo on December 13, 2011 purportedly convened an annual general meeting of Nerry Investments in Beitbridge, chaired by Mohadi, where they resolved that Dawson be removed as a director in his absence.

Mohadi and Moyo purportedly took over control of the company, triggering a series of court actions, as Dawson challenged the move.

Dawson, as the first applicant on January 10, 2012 challenged his ouster as illegal. His wife Susan Jane and Red Queen Trading (Private) Limited were the second and third applicants, respectively.

Liquidated Nerry Investments, represented by Barbra Lunga, listed Mohadi, Moyo and the estate of late Thenjiwe Lesabe, then a shareholder, as first to fourth respondents.

Dawson prayed for an order declaring the said meeting unlawful and invalid.

“All resolutions made at the meeting purporting to be that of the first respondent (Nerry Investments) be declared invalid and set aside,” Dawson submitted.

He also prayed for Mohadi and Moyo to pay the costs of the suit.

Bulawayo High Court judge, Justice Martin Makonese, in his ruling on November 17, said while the matter was pending in court, Nerry Investments was placed under provisional liquidation on July 4, 2012 and placed in final liquidation on December 6, 2012.

He said Lunga was appointed a liquidator and all this meant that the matter could not proceed without leave of the court in terms of the provisions of section 213 (a) of the Companies Act Chapter 24:04.

Makonese said this provision states that no legal action can proceed when the company is liquidated. He said Dawson applied for leave of the case, which was granted on July 16, 2015.

Mohadi and Moyo opposed the application, saying the general meeting was properly held and accused Dawson of disappearing without any notice to the other directors.

They claimed Dawson excluded them in the running of the company, hence, they called for the meeting, where the resolution to remove him was passed.

“The respondents have not dealt with the preliminary points raised against them in the heads of arguments. On both points respondents contend that the notice of opposition is not rendered fatal by the omissions. It now seems fashionable and indeed customary for litigants to deliberately abstain from complying with the rules only to appear in court and casually, without any explanation, ask the court to condone the non-observance of rules of court,” Makonese ruled.

“This practice is absolutely unacceptable and the court will only exercise its discretion when it is in the interests of justice to do so … The failure to comply with the provisions of the law was occasioned by the very fact that no valid meeting was held, as it was null and void. The annual general meeting of the first respondent purportedly held on December 13, 2011 and convened by second and third respondent be and are, hereby declared invalid and unlawful.”

He ordered Mohadi and Moyo to pay the costs of the suit.