Major Telecel Zimbabwe shareholder, James Makamba is in trouble over a $2.5 million deal he entered with Brainworks CEO, George Manyere, where he had promised him 65% of his stake, of the loan extended to him.
Makamba’s Krestel Investiments is under high court provisional judicial management as Mr George Manyere fights to recover his US$2.5 million.
James Makamba is now challenging, through the High Court seeking removal of his investment vehicle, Kestrel Corporation (Private) Limited from provisional judicial management.
Mr Manyere through his firm Ecsponent Zimbabwe, entered into an agreement with Mr Makamba’s Kestrel Corporation over sale of Telecel shares.
However, the transaction did not go through and Mr Makamba has failed to pay back the money.
High Court judge Justice Thompson Mabhikwa ordered that Kestrel be placed under provisional judicial management indefinitely so that its assets are not auctioned amidst indications that government is currently mulling a 100% stake take over Telecel.
“The Master is hereby directed to appoint Winsley Militala as provisional judicial manager of respondent (Kestrel Corporation), with the powers and duties set out in Section 303 of the Companies Act (Chapter 24:03),” ruled the judge.
Representing Mr Makamba, Scanlen and Holderness legal practitioners filed an urgent chamber application for discharge of provisional order filed at the High Court in Bulawayo on April 3, 2019. In the urgent chamber application for discharge of provisional order, Mr Makamba is cited as the applicant, Kestrel Corporation (private) Limited as the first respondent while Mr Manyere and Empowerment Corporation are second and third respondents respectively. Mr Militala of Petwin Executor and Trust Company has been appointed provisional judicial manager. In the urgent chamber application, Mr Makamba’s lawyers argue that:
The applicant is a member of the first respondent. In terms of section 301 (2) of the Companies Act (Chapter 24;03), the applicant is entitled to apply for the discharge of the provisional order and anticipate the return day.
“A provisional order was granted on March 19, 2019 placing the first respondent under provisional judicial management. There is no basis for the order to have been granted as the applicants therein are not creditors of the first respondent. Furthermore, the first respondent is able to pay its debt.”
Makamba’s lawyers said the order was sought based on an alleged failure by the first respondent to fulfil a share purchase agreement.
“The shares are still owned by the first respondent. If applicants in HC167/19 have a legitimate claim they should apply for specific performance.
“The first respondent has a defence to the claim being made by the applicants in HC167/19. In fact there is pending litigation between the parties in the Harare High Court over the sum claimed. It is thus improper for applicants in that matter to seek an order of judicial management based on the same claim,” Scanlen and Holderness legal practitioners, argued.