Sole v Kazi (HC 6559 of 2005) [2006] ZWHHC 101 (12 September 2006)

Sole v Kazi (HC 6559 of 2005) [2006] ZWHHC 101 (12 September 2006)

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent is a debtor as defined by the Act or that he committed an act of insolvency. All payments were made to companies, not the respondent, and there is no evidence justifying lifting the corporate veil. The application lacks merit and is dismissed.

Citation
[2006] ZWHHC 101
Parties
Applicant: Prime Sole; Respondent: Munir Kazi
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
12 September 2006
Case Number
HC 6559 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Opposed Court Application / Judgment on Application for Provisional Sequestration
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Acts of Insolvency, Corporate Veil, Debtor Definition
Source Language
English
Insolvency Law Provisional Sequestration Acts of Insolvency Corporate Veil Debtor Definition

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prime Sole

Applicant

Munir Kazi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Opposed Court Application / Judgment on Application for Provisional Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent committed an act of insolvency under section 11(f) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:04]
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is a debtor as defined by the Act
  3. 3 Whether sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent is a debtor as defined by the Act or that he committed an act of insolvency. All payments were made to companies, not the respondent, and there is no evidence justifying lifting the corporate veil. The application lacks merit and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.