Dahaw (Private) Limited and Another v Willdale Limited and 5 Others (235 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 235 (6 April 2022)

Dahaw (Private) Limited and Another v Willdale Limited and 5 Others (235 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 235 (6 April 2022)

The applicants failed to provide a company resolution authorizing the institution of proceedings or the second applicant's representation. The requirements for a derivative action were not met, and the notices of opposition by the fourth to sixth respondents were not properly before the court. There were therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZWHHC 235
Parties
Applicant: Dahaw (Private) Limited; Applicant: Nyasha Noreen Nyorovai Del Campo (Nee Mujuru); Respondent: Willdale Limited; Respondent: Washington Chidziwo N. O.; Respondent: Doctor Joice Teurai Ropa Mujuru; Respondent: Kumbirai Mujuru; Respondent: Chipo Mujuru; Respondent: Kuzivakwashe Mujuru
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
6 April 2022
Case Number
235 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Struck out
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Authority to Institute Proceedings, Corporate Personality, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
english
Company Law Civil Procedure Derivative Actions Authority to Institute Proceedings Corporate Personality Affidavit Requirements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dahaw (Private) Limited

Applicant

Nyasha Noreen Nyorovai Del Campo (Nee Mujuru)

Applicant

Willdale Limited

Respondent

Washington Chidziwo N. O.

Respondent

Doctor Joice Teurai Ropa Mujuru

Respondent

Kumbirai Mujuru

Respondent

Chipo Mujuru

Respondent

Kuzivakwashe Mujuru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the company
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a derivative action were met
  3. 3 Whether the notices of opposition by the fourth to sixth respondents were properly before the court

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide a company resolution authorizing the institution of proceedings or the second applicant's representation. The requirements for a derivative action were not met, and the notices of opposition by the fourth to sixth respondents were not properly before the court. There were therefore no applicants properly before the court.

Court Disposition

Struck out

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll.
  • The applicants shall pay the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents’ costs.