It was reported that Dr. James Makamba was in serious trouble pursuant to the issuance of a High Court order placing Kestrel Corporation, a company duly incorporated and operating in terms of the Companies Act of Zimbabwe, under judicial management.
What are the facts? It is not in dispute that four parties appear to be in this dispute as follows:
Mr. Makamba is the applicant in this matter and he has approached the Court in anticipation of the return date of in respect of the order granted against Kestrel seeking the Court to discharge the provisions judicial management order.
It is now common cause that the beneficiary of the order, Ecsponent Zimbabwe (Private) Limited (Ecsponent) approached the Court in Bulawayo seeking on an ex-parte basis an order placing Kestrel Corporation Private Limited (Kestrel) under provisional judicial management.
An order was granted on 19 March 2019 that has informed various headlines on the mainstream and social media focusing on the person of Mr. James Makamba rather than the juristic entities whose rights and obligations seems to be at play in this dispute.
Dr. Makamba only became aware of the application on 27 March 2019 that was issued on 31 January 2019. This exposes that the Applicants had no interest in playing by the rule of natural justice but could have been motivated by an ulterior motive.
Dr. Makamba alleges that the Applicants had no locus standi to bring the application in the first place. He contends that the Applicants were at all material times not creditors of the company.
What lessons do we learn from this?
Mr. Donovan Wyngaard, a member of the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF), initiative and the co-host of the Sandton Express on the www.the1873fm.com had this to say:
“As a former Zimbabwean myself who has known Dr. Makamba for years, I was shocked to learn that the focus of the media was to focus on his person rather than the issues in dispute.
This platform is dedicated to promoting good journalism so that we can bank on the media to inform and educate the public correctly.
In this case, Dr. Makamba’s application has put a new twist to this matter. It turns out that an order of Court was granted to parties who are not creditors of the Respondents that were cited in the application.
This has significant implications on the justice supply value chain. Perjury and defeating the due administration of justice are criminal offences in their own right.
It is my understanding that Mr. Manyere is a professional of repute and knows and ought to have known that fraudulent conveyancing of a claim puts the whole administration of justice and the integrity of the Courts in question.”