(1)
WHETHER HWANGE COLLIERY WAS ENTITLED TO REMOVE FRED MOYO FROM THE
LIST OF SIGNATORIES AND SUBSTITUTE HIM WITH ANOTHER
In
its application under HC5105/13, filed on 27 June 2013, Hwange
Colliery, after setting out the nature of the multi faceted dispute
between the disparate parties, made the point that it was so
undoubtedly an interested party ...
(1)
WHETHER HWANGE COLLIERY WAS ENTITLED TO REMOVE FRED MOYO FROM THE
LIST OF SIGNATORIES AND SUBSTITUTE HIM WITH ANOTHER
In
its application under HC5105/13, filed on 27 June 2013, Hwange
Colliery, after setting out the nature of the multi faceted dispute
between the disparate parties, made the point that it was so
undoubtedly an interested party that it was manifestly improper for
it to have been excluded from the twin Samukange applications. As
final relief, Hwange Colliery sought an order that it be joined to
those proceedings. It also sought costs against any party that would
oppose its application. As interim relief, Hwange Colliery sought an
interdict against Fred Moyo to restrain him from representing the
Coal Gasification Company in any capacity whatsoever, particularly as
signatory to that company's accounts or as its director. Hwange
Colliery also sought, as an interim relief, an amendment to the
consent order by DUBE J so that it would read as follows:
“Applicant's
authorised signatories, namely, Staford Ndlovu, Tafara Gadzirai and
Feng Guo all signing together shall have unconditional access to the
account for the purposes of transacting on behalf of Applicant.”
The
effect of the amendment sought by Hwange Colliery was obviously to
remove Fred Moyo from the list of the Bank signatories and to
substitute him with Staford Ndlovu and to ensure that any bank
withdrawals would have to be signed for by all three signatories.
The
parties' arguments regarding the position of both Fred Moyo and
Savanhu on the Board of Directors for the Coal Gasification Company
has already been set out. During the hearing it appeared Fred Moyo,
who was neither represented nor present, was contesting his
termination of employment with Hwange Colliery. However, that was not
the basis for opposition by the Samukange faction. Furthermore, that
was not an issue before me. Hwange Colliery predicated its argument
on clause 4.5 of the BOOT agreement. In both its application and in
argument before me Hwange Colliery referred to that agreement as the
joint venture agreement between itself and Taiyuan.
On
the other hand, the Samukange faction stressed that it was not the
joint venture agreement but just the BOOT agreement.
As
a matter-of-fact, the written document neither called itself the
joint venture agreement nor the BOOT agreement. In the preamble, it
simply referred to itself as an “Agreement for the construction in
Zimbabwe of a Coke Oven and Battery on a Build, Operate, Own and
Transfer (BOOT) basis”.
In
clause 4, it was recorded that the parties would incorporate a
company in Zimbabwe with limited liability the principal object for
which would be the processing and carbonization of coal from
resources within Zimbabwe and that the name of such company, subject
to the approval by the Registrar of Companies, would be known as
“Zimbabwe Coal Gasification Company Limited, or, alternatively,
Hwange Coal Gasification Company Limited ('the Company')”.
The
term 'Company' was defined to mean “the project vehicle that
will be incorporated for purposes of implementing the project”.
By
'Project' was meant the planning, feasibility study, design,
engineering technical services, construction, commissioning,
operation, owning in Zimbabwe and transfer of a coke oven battery,
etc. as specified.
In
my view, whether the agreement was a joint venture agreement or the
BOOT agreement seems immaterial and nothing turns on it. I have
consistently referred to it as the BOOT agreement simply for ease of
identification.
Clause
4.5 dealt with the respective rights of the BOOT partners to appoint
directors to the Board of the Coal Gasification Company. Taiyuan was
entitled to appoint five (5) directors. Hwange Colliery was entitled
to appoint two (2). The total number of directors would be seven (7).
Mr
Mpofu argued that Fred Moyo and Savanhu had been appointed onto the
Board of the Coal Gasification Company by Hwange Colliery. The two
held their directorships in that company at the pleasure of Hwange
Colliery. The choice of Fred Moyo as one of the signatories to the
Bank accounts in terms of the consent order necessarily stemmed from
his previous position as an appointee of Hwange Colliery on to the
Board of the Coal Gasification Company. Fred Moyo, having lost his
employment with Hwange Colliery and having been removed from its own
Board, could no longer remain as its representative on the Board of
the Coal Gasification Company. It was extremely harmful to the
interests of Hwange Colliery in the Coal Gasification Company for
Fred Moyo to be appointed signatory, even in an interim capacity,
especially given the turmoil in that company.
On
the other hand, Mr Samukange's argument was that the two factions
had settled for Fred Moyo as the third signatory to the Bank accounts
purely as he was considered to be a neutral party. It was not on the
basis that he had previously been an appointee of Hwange Colliery
onto the Board of the Coal Gasification Company. His appointment as a
signatory was not for the purposes of representing Hwange Colliery.
Mr Samukange further argued that Hwange Colliery was a mere minority
shareholder in the Coal Gasification Company. It had no right, either
in terms of the BOOT agreement or any other agreement, to be involved
in the day to day management of that company. That right had been
entrusted to Taiyuan, particularly his faction. Signing bank accounts
was part and parcel of the day to day management of a company. By
imposing its own choice of signatories Hwange Colliery was seeking to
“sneak” into the management of the Coal Gasification Company by
the back door. Mr Samukange referred to clause 7 of the BOOT
agreement. It provided as follows:
“7.
Management during Operation Period During the agreed 10-year
Operation period after commissioning of the Project, Taiyuan shall:
7.1
Operate and manage the Project in terms of a Management Contract to
be entered into with the Company; Management Contract shall stipulate
details with respect to the content, method, and costs of management.
7.2
Ensure that the Project is operated, maintained, and managed
according to accepted standards and shall report regularly to the
Board of Directors of the Company.
7.3….,.
7.4…,.
7.5…,.”
Mr
Mpofu argued that other than the BOOT agreement there were no further
agreements entered into by the parties and that clause 7 was
irrelevant.
In
my view, it is evidently untenable for the Samukange faction to want
to rely on any prior agreements or the status quo pertaining to the
management of the Coal Gasification Company when everything else
seemed to have gone wrong. The situation obtaining in the Coal
Gasification Company was abnormal. One faction was getting a director
or directors aligned to it to sign resolutions authorising it to
bring proceedings in the name of the company. The other faction would
do exactly the same.
At
the hearing there was this remarkable situation that two sets of
legal representatives purported to represent the same company.
As
I observed at the beginning, this court had been called upon on
numerous other occasions in just a space of four months to resolve
boardroom wrangles. These were abnormal times for the Coal
Gasification Company and all those associated with it. This was
starkly demonstrated by the two orders which both factions had
consented to.
Feng
said before the disputes he had been the sole signatory. But,
obviously, with the consent orders he now had to contend with two
others. Furthermore, even accepting that the choice of Fred Moyo had
been motivated by the fact that he was a neutral party, a position
disputed by Hwange Colliery, he certainly was not a man from the
street. If neutrality was the sole factor, no doubt there would be
numerous other neutrals. The choice of Fred Moyo was demonstrably
influenced by the fact that he had been a Board member of the Coal
Gasification Company. He still appeared on the list of directors for
that company's Form CR14.
I
accept the argument that the tenure of Fred Moyo's directorship on
the Board of the Coal Gasification Company was at the pleasure of
Hwange Colliery. He having left Hwange Colliery, Fred Moyo no longer
had any business being associated with the Coal Gasification Company
in any capacity - including as signatory to the Bank accounts for
that company. Hwange Colliery was the only other shareholder in the
Coal Gasification Company - albeit a minority one. However, the
majority shareholder, Taiyuan, was itself rocked by internal
squabbles. It was not unreasonable for Hwange Colliery to become
apprehensive. It was not unreasonable for it to seek to be involved
in proceedings that had a material bearing on its interest in the
company in which it had helped establish and in which it was the only
other shareholder with reserved seats on the Board.
At
any rate, the entire arrangement that persons who previously had no
signing powers on the Bank accounts of the company now did was only
an interim and stop gap measure taken with the reasonable view to
keep everything intact or under control until the disputes were
permanently resolved.
In
terms of clause 7 of the BOOT agreement…, it was obviously
contemplated to enter into a management contract for the management
of the BOOT project. But, it appears that this never materialised.
Therefore, the only guiding document on the rights and duties of the
BOOT partners remained the BOOT agreement.
In
the premises, I find that the application by Hwange Colliery in which
it sought the amendment of the consent order by DUBE J to remove the
name of Fred Moyo from the list of signatories and to have it
substituted with that of Staford Ndlovu had merit.
However,
before I grant that application, it is necessary to deal with the
issue of joinder.
Hwange
Colliery's application to be joined to the proceedings was sought
as a final order. Strictly speaking, until it was joined it could not
properly seek to interfere with the order to which it was not a
party. Thus, it could not properly seek to have the consent order by
DUBE J amended before it was joined.
However,
I hold the view that this was merely a technical error in drafting.
The relief sought as an interim order should first have sought the
joinder and thereafter the rest of the orders sought. For the sake of
expediency I am prepared to condone the error.
After
all, the substantive relief being pursued is the removal of Fred Moyo
from the list of the Bank signatories and his substitution thereof
with someone else.
I
also appreciate that the preparation of the papers could have been
made in a rush in view of the perceived urgency.
Misjoinder
or non-joinder of parties is governed by Order 13 Rule 87. The
relevant provision is sub-rule (2)(b). It reads as follows:
“(2)
At any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the court may
on such terms as it thinks fit and just either of its own motion or
on application –
[a]…,.
[b]
Order any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose
presence before the court is necessary to ensure that all matters in
dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely
determined and adjudicated upon, to be added as a party;”…,.
The
purpose of joinder is largely convenience or necessity. Joinder saves
time, effort, and costs.
HERBSTEIN
& VAN WINSEN, The Civil Practice of the High Courts and the
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, 5th
ed…, state:
“A
third party who has, or may have, a direct and substantial interest
in any order the court might make in proceedings or if such an order
cannot be sustained or carried into effect without prejudicing that
party, is a necessary party and should be joined in the proceedings,
unless the court is satisfied that such person has waived the right
to be joined.”
Under
Rule 87, the court is given a wide discretion. The court can order
joinder even in the absence of an application by any person.
In
this case, not only was there an application but also it was not
opposed. The only mistake was that Hwange Colliery sought it as part
of the final relief. Thus, Hwange Colliery is entitled to be joined
as a party to the proceedings in HC4895/13. It is also entitled to
have the consent order by DUBE J, on 24 June 2013, amended by the
deletion of Fred Moyo's name therefrom and having it substituted
thereof with that of Staford Ndlovu.
(2)
WHETHER HWANGE COLLIERY WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE CONSENT ORDER BY
DUBE J FURTHER AMENDED SO THAT IT WOULD REFLECT THAT ALL WITHDRAWALS
FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS WOULD BE SIGNED FOR BY ALL THE THREE
SIGNATORIES
I
was not satisfied that Hwange Colliery's reason for wanting all
three signatories to sign for any withdrawals was properly
articulated. In reality, this particular aspect seemed to have been
raised as an appurtenance to the main concern relating to Fred Moyo.
These
matters are really crying out for resolution in the boardrooms of the
corporations involved. The court should not be extensively involved
any more than it should.
After
the consent order by DUBE J, the Dzvetero faction had become
satisfied with the measure of protection afforded by that interim
signing arrangement. As a result, it went on to withdraw its own
application under HC4897/13 that had been placed before me.
The
Coal Gasification Company is a going concern. One of the reasons
cited for the urgency of the matters was that there were recurrent
expenditures such as salaries and utility bills as well as ongoing
contractual obligations that needed to be paid. That was why the
freeze on the Bank accounts had to be lifted as a matter of urgency
to avoid causing irreparable damage to the company.
I
consider that by seconding one of its men to the Coal Gasification
Company as an interim co-signatory to the Bank accounts of that
company Hwange Colliery has achieved a measure of protection. It
should now be up to the Board of that company to sort out the interim
signing arrangement rather than to allow a minority shareholder to
make further inroads into the management of the company.
In
the absence of the consent of the other parties I am not convinced
that Hwange Colliery should have its way on this. The court should
not get involved in such detail. It was all right to do so when the
original parties before DUBE J agreed between themselves and
consented to the order. Furthermore, it appeared throughout the
hearing that all the parties were satisfied with Gadzirai being a
co-signatory in whatever signing arrangement. He was still a
co-signatory even after the amendment of the order by DUBE J which
relaxed the signing arrangement to allow any two to sign instead of
all three. In the premises, the further amendment sought by Hwange
Colliery to have all three signatories signing for any Bank
withdrawal is denied.
(3)
WHETHER HWANGE COLLIERY WAS ENTITLED TO THE ANTI-DISSIPATION
INTERDICT AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE COAL GASIFICATION COMPANY
PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF ITS ACTION FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE
CONTRACT AND FOR DAMAGES IN HC537/13
In
a nutshell, the argument by Hwange Colliery on this point was said to
be the need to preserve the assets of the Coal Gasification Company
until the disputes, particularly its action for damages, were
resolved. It was argued that Hwange Colliery had a serious
apprehension of harm that given the upheaval in its BOOT partner,
Taiyuan, and the free for all situation obtaining in that company, it
was reasonable to interdict anyone associated with that company, as
an interim measure, from taking any action that would dissipate its
assets before the conclusion of the matters.
The
draft order sought by Hwange Colliery was couched as follows:
“IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
Pending
the finalisation of litigation under case number HC537/13;
1.
The 1st
(the Coal Gasification Company), 2nd
(Taiyuan), 3rd
(Msipa), 4th
(Feng), 5th
(Longmin) and 6th
(Chawanda) Counter Respondents acting together, or any one of them or
any number of them in combination be and are hereby interdicted from
selling, transferring or in any other way encumbering 1st
Counter Applicant's (sic) movable and immovable property, specially
the coal stocks and coking oven battery currently situated at the 1st
Respondent's (sic) yard at Hwange without the prior written
approval of the Counter Applicant through its nominated
representatives.
2.
In the event that the 1st,
2nd,
3rd,
4th,
5th
and 6th
Counter
Respondents acting together, or any one of them or any number of them
in combination sells the property aforementioned pending the final
determination of the matter under case number HC537/13, they be and
are hereby interdicted from using, moving and/or disposing of the
proceeds of such sale without the prior written consent of the 1st
Respondent [sic], which proceeds shall be deposited into any of the
accounts of the 1st
Counter Respondent held with 7th
(Kingdom), 8th
(Stanbic) or 9th
(Allied Bank) Respondents.
3.
That 1st,
2nd,
3rd,
4th,
5th
and 6th
Counter Respondents acting together, or any one of them or any number
of them in combination be and are hereby interdicted from opening any
other Bank account with any other institution, or otherwise
circumventing the three specific accounts held with 7th,
8th
and 9th
Counter Applicants (sic).
4.
That any Counter Respondent who opposes the Counter Application shall
pay Counter Applicant's costs of suit on the higher scale of legal
practitioner and client.”
During
the hearing, it was clarified that the anti-dissipation interdict was
not meant to affect funds held at the Banks.
I
am satisfied that given that the Coal Gasification Company was a
going concern with substantial financial commitments on a day to day
basis such an order would cripple the company and eventually collapse
it.
Whilst
I found Hwange Colliery's fears to be reasonable under the
circumstances, nonetheless, I have considered that; firstly, the
signing arrangement above is a good measure of protection for
everyone, and, secondly, that since the interdict related mainly to
the coke oven and battery there was minimal danger of its
dissipation. That was a structure that was fixed to the ground. It
was in the nature of an immovable property. It could only be removed
by stripping off its components. It was built on the premises of
Hwange Colliery itself, therefore, Hwange Colliery could easily
monitor the structure and take remedial action if anyone tried to
tamper with it. The coal stokes are the raw materials for the
production of the coke. Such an order, as Mr Samukange pointed out,
would virtually close down the company. That would be unfortunate.
Such a consequence is certainly not what was intended. It is for
these reasons that Hwange Colliery's application under HC5171/13 is
hereby rejected.
(4)
WHETHER SAVANHU SHOULD BE INTERDICTED FROM HOLDING HIMSELF OUT AS ONE
WITH AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE COAL GASIFICATION COMPANY AND FROM
ATTENDING MEETINGS OF, SIGNING DOCUMENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF, THAT
COMPANY
In
resisting Hwange Colliery's application, Mr Samukange relied on the
Articles of Association of the Coal Gasification Company. He argued
that in terms of Article 17 the directors were appointed for life
unless they resigned or were removed in terms of the specific
circumstances outlined therein. He submitted that the court should
bind the parties to their agreement.
He
said Hwange Colliery was not entitled to recall Savanhu from the Coal
Gasification Company even if he might no longer be with Hwange
Colliery. It was up to the Coal Gasification Company itself to
properly remove him from its Board in terms of its Articles of
Association.
Article
17 reads as follows:
“17
NO ROTATION OF DIRECTORS
The
provisions of Regulations 90 to 96 or Part 1 of Table 'A' shall
not apply. A Director shall not be subject to retirement by rotation,
and shall continue to hold office until he or she dies, resigns or is
disqualified in terms of Regulation 89 of Part 1 of Table 'A' or
removed from the office in terms of Regulation 97 of Part 1 of Table
'A'."
In
brief, Regulations 90 to 96 of Table A in the First Schedule to the
Companies Act [Chapter 24:03] provide for the rotation of directors
of a company. In terms of those Regulations all the directors of a
company retire from office at the first Annual General Meeting (AGM).
One third of them retire in subsequent Annual General Meetings
(AGMs) in the order specified. Retiring directors are eligible for
re-election. The company may fill the vacancies of retired directors.
The company can increase or reduce the number of its directors. The
directors themselves can fill casual vacancies.
Thus,
the net effect of the exclusion of Regulations 90 to 96 of Table A by
Article 17 of the Articles of Association of the Coal Gasification
Company and replacing them with its own peculiar provision was that
any person appointed as director of that company held office for life
unless he or she resigned or became disqualified in terms of
Regulations 89 or 97.
It
was common cause that Savanhu had neither resigned from the Coal
Gasification Company nor had become disqualified in terms of
Regulation 89 or 97.
Regulation
89 of Table A provides for the disqualification of a director on
various grounds. These include the failure of a director to acquire a
specified shareholding in the company where he or she is required to
do so; a director becoming afflicted by a legal, mental or
physiological disability such as insolvency, insanity or conviction
of specified offences; a director who is under-age or who a court has
removed from office; or a director with prolonged absenteeism from
Board meetings.
None
of these were issues before me in respect of Savanhu.
Regulation
97 of Table A provides for the removal of a director by a company
itself through an ordinary resolution which is preceded by a special
notice.
It
was common cause that as far as Savanhu's directorship in the Coal
Gasification Company was concerned this had not happened. On the
contrary, it was submitted that he was still very much wanted and
that he was still being called to that company's meetings.
On
the Savanhu issue, the crisp point for determination was the effect
to be given to Article 17 vis-a-vis clause 4.5 of the BOOT agreement.
I should point out that clause 4.5 had, in essence, been duplicated
in Article 11 of the same Articles. It was couched as follows:
“11
DIRECTORS
Hwange
Colliery Company to appoint 2 [two] directors and Taiyuan Sanxing
Company to appoint 5 (five).”
It
was most unsatisfactory for me to have to determine the respective
rights of the BOOT partners in such a summary fashion as the urgent
chamber applications obliged me to do. The legal issues were of
considerable importance. But they were not, and could not, have been
properly canvassed or ventilated when the matters had come to court
under certificates of urgency. Therefore, the conclusion that I have
come to in this matter should be understood only in the context of
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter.
As
pointed out earlier, the Samukange faction was able to claim the
authority to bring proceedings in the name of the Coal Gasification
Company largely on the basis of a purported resolution of the Board
of Directors for that company signed by Savanhu. Hwange Colliery's
application to interdict Savanhu was based on what it claimed to be
the harmful effects of Savanhu's conduct. Dealing specifically with
this point, Hwange Colliery's deponent to the founding affidavit in
HC5331/13, after setting out how Fred Moyo and Savanhu had been
removed from its own Board and how that removal had been communicated
to the Coal Gasification Company, through the Company Secretary, and
how at the same time replacement names had been forwarded, went on to
aver as follows:
“14.
It is therefore beyond dispute that the 1st
Respondent (i.e. Savanhu) was removed from 2nd
Respondent's Board (i.e. the Coal Gasification Company) by his
former appointee, the Applicant (i.e. Hwange Colliery).
15.
However, sometime in June 2013, 1st
Respondent attended an opaque Board meeting which culminated in him
signing a certain resolution authorising one Guo Feng to represent
the company in certain litigation matters.
16….,.
17.
After 1st
Respondent was dismissed by the Applicant, the term of office of Mr.
Fred Moyo with whom 1st
Respondent formerly served on the Board of 2nd
Respondent as Applicant's appointees expired. The said Fred Moyo
also ceased to be part of both Applicant and 2nd
Respondent.
18….,.
19.
While all this happened, Mr. Guo Feng and Su Longmin, the other Board
members of the 2nd
Respondent, being representatives of the Taiyuan Sanxin (sic) Company
Limited were also dismissed by their principals and replaced….,.
20….,.
21.
The harmful effects of 1st
Respondent's actions are seen by what resulted from this action.
Armed with this resolution, Guo Feng filed a series of urgent chamber
applications for control of signing rights over the 2nd
Respondent's Bank accounts. Applicant was conveniently not cited in
any of these applications in spite of being a major shareholder in
2nd
Respondent….,.”
In
my view, the directorship of the Coal Gasification Company was a
closed shop if regard is had to clause 4.5 of the BOOT agreement and
Article 11 of the Articles of Association.
The
directors were appointed, not elected, by the two shareholders in
terms of the agreed ratio. An appointee is one who is chosen or
placed by someone else in a job or position of responsibility. This
does not follow the process of an election which entails a formal
appointment following a formal process of voting.
Article
17 referred to elected directors who would otherwise retire by
rotation in terms of the provisions of the Regulations to the
Companies Act.
In
my view, the exclusion by Article 17 of the application of
Regulations 90 to 96 in Table A did not take away the shareholders'
rights to appoint their own directors to the Board of the Coal
Gasification Company.
I
accept the argument that Fred Moyo and Savanhu held office as
directors of the Coal Gasification Company at the pleasure of Hwange
Colliery. I consider that the power to appoint must have entailed the
power to remove or to recall.
Having
been removed from the Board of Hwange Colliery, and having been
expressly recalled from the Board of the Coal Gasification Company,
Fred Moyo and Savanhu no longer represented anyone in that company.
To
hold that once having been appointed to the Board of that company
they occupied the office for life unless removed in the circumstances
proscribed by Article 17 would lead to absurd results. Among other
things, it would mean Hwange Colliery would cease to have any
representation on that Board. Even Taiyuan itself, the majority
shareholder, would also cease to have any representation in the event
that it also recalled its own appointees as was alleged in respect of
Feng and Longmin.
I
do not think that it was ever intended that the Coal Gasification
Company would, at any time, be controlled by anyone else other than
the appointees of the two respective shareholders in the prescribed
proportion until the expiry of the BOOT agreement.
In
the circumstances, I am prepared to grant the relief sought. After
all, it is only an interim measure. The matter shall properly be
argued on the return day.
COSTS
Except
for Stanbic, virtually all the other parties sought costs against
each other on the higher scale.
On
the single day that he appeared, Mr Chagonda, for Stanbic, sought
costs on behalf of that Bank and that they be paid by whoever would
be ordered to pay the costs.
I
consider that all the parties have been partially successful in some
ways and partially unsuccessful in others. I consider that in view of
the convoluted and multi faceted nature of the dispute this is a
proper case for each party to bear their own costs.
In
the final result it is ordered as follows:
1.
Hwange Colliery Company Limited be and is hereby joined as a party to
the proceedings instituted in this court under the case references
HC4861/13 and HC4895/13.
2.
The interim order by consent issued by Honourable Dube J on 24 June
2013 in HC4895/13 be and is hereby amended by the deletion of the
name “Fred Moyo” wherever it appears and the substitution thereof
with the name “Staford Ndlovu”. The interim signing arrangements
agreed to, or ordered, in these matters shall apply in relation to
all the Bank accounts for Hwange Coal Gasification Company [Private]
Limited.
3.
Mr Tendai Savanhu is hereby interdicted and restrained from holding
himself out to any person or body whatsoever as one with authority to
represent Hwange Colliery Company Limited in any manner or capacity.
4.
Mr Tendai Savanhu is hereby further interdicted and restrained from
attending any Board meetings of the Hwange Coal Gasification Company
(Private) Limited or from signing any documents or making any
representations or statement of authority in relation to that
company.
5.
The application by Hwange Colliery Company Limited for an interim
anti-dissipation interdict against the property of Hwange Coal
Gasification Company (Private) Limited be and is hereby dismissed.
6.
Each party shall pay their own costs.
