ZIMASCO (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus AVIM INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and OTHERS (225 of 2025) [2015] ZWHHC 225 (31 March 2015)

ZIMASCO (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus AVIM INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and OTHERS (225 of 2025) [2015] ZWHHC 225 (31 March 2015)

The applicant, Zimasco (Private) Limited, is not the entity placed under corporate rescue in the prior order, and the second respondent's actions to assert authority over the applicant are not supported by the court order. The applicant established a prima facie right to protection from such actions, demonstrated urgency, irreparable harm, and lack of alternative remedy. Preliminary objections by the respondents lack merit as the applicant is not bound by the prior order, and the relief sought is not academic. The balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Citation
[2015] ZWHHC 225
Parties
Applicant: ZIMASCO (PRIVATE) LIMITED; 1st Respondent: AVIM INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: WILSON TATENDA MANASE; 3rd Respondent: THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT; 4th Respondent: THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
31 March 2015 31 March 2015 4 March 2015
Case Number
225 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application for an Interdict / Interim Relief Determination
Outcome
Interim interdict granted
Legal Topics
Corporate Rescue, Interdicts, Company Identity, Urgency in Applications, Misjoinder and Non Joinder, Service of Court Orders
Source Language
English
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Corporate Rescue Interdicts Company Identity Urgency in Applications Misjoinder and Non Joinder +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZIMASCO (PRIVATE) LIMITED

Applicant

AVIM INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED

1st Respondent

WILSON TATENDA MANASE

2nd Respondent

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT

3rd Respondent

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application for an Interdict / Interim Relief Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is the entity placed under corporate rescue in the prior order
  2. 2 Whether the matter is urgent
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim interdictory relief

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, Zimasco (Private) Limited, is not the entity placed under corporate rescue in the prior order, and the second respondent's actions to assert authority over the applicant are not supported by the court order. The applicant established a prima facie right to protection from such actions, demonstrated urgency, irreparable harm, and lack of alternative remedy. Preliminary objections by the respondents lack merit as the applicant is not bound by the prior order, and the relief sought is not academic. The balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted

Orders

  • The second respondent is interdicted from asserting or conducting himself as a corporate rescue practitioner supervising and managing the applicant in accordance with Part XXIII of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07], pending determination of the applicant’s application for a declaration or rescission/setting aside.
  • Any employee of the applicant or its legal practitioners of record is authorised to serve a copy of this provisional order on the respondents.