The applicants, who are father
and son, hail from Pakistan. They came to Zimbabwe sometime in
2008 as investors. On 3 October, 2008 they were granted an investment licence
by the Zimbabwe Investment Authority. Their investment vehicle is styled Tonia
Investments (Pvt) Ltd in which they hold 50% shareholding each. That investment
licence was to ...
The applicants, who are father
and son, hail from Pakistan.
They came to Zimbabwe sometime in
2008 as investors. On 3 October, 2008 they were granted an investment licence
by the Zimbabwe Investment Authority. Their investment vehicle is styled Tonia
Investments (Pvt) Ltd in which they hold 50% shareholding each. That investment
licence was to endure up until 2 October 2010. It was renewed on 8 October 2010
to run for another 2 years up to 7 October 2012. In the investment licence, the
description of the investment is given as: “Manufacture of blankets, overalls,
socks and jeans.'' Under description and value of assets invested or to be
invested it is written: Foreign Currency
injection US$200,000=: Capital Equipment from Abroad US$450,000=.''
The licence stipulated that the
investment assets described at their estimated value were to be invested within
2 years of approval unless otherwise agreed to by the Zimbabwe Investment
Authority. Incorporated in the licence
are special conditions one of which states:
“1.
This licence is issued on the express condition that the Company/Applicant will
only engage in the activity (ies) stated in the licence and for no other
purpose without the written consent of the Zimbabwe Investment Authority.”
The current registered office of
the company is 24 South Avenue, Harare. The company has what it termed an
outlet shop at number 31 Cameron Street, Harare.
On
the strength of being approved investors, the first applicant, his wife and
three children, and I presume the same obtains in respect of the second
applicant, had been granted residence permits on 8 July 2009 enduring from 1
July 2009 to 30 July 2010. Buoyed by the renewal of the investment licence on 8
October 2010 alluded to supra the applicants applied for residence
permit extension. The date for the application is not disclosed but on 3
January 2011 the Principal Director for Immigration wrote to both applicants
stating:
“Thank
you for application for an extension of the Residence permit.
I
regret to advise that, after careful consideration, it has been decided that no
further extension of the Permit will be allowed. It is now necessary that the
above named should go with this letter to his nearest Immigration Office so
that departure arrangement may be made.''
On 2 February 2011, the
applicants were issued with a Notice to Visitor by the immigration Department
valid from 2 February 2011 to 1 March 2011 advising them to report to
immigration at Harare Airport to leave the country.
On 7 February 2011, the
applicants' legal practitioners wrote to the Principal Director of the Department
of Immigration appealing to the same official against his/her decision to
refuse residence permit extension and requiring the applicants to depart from
the country on or before 1st March 2011. The applicants wanted the Principal
Director to reverse his/her earlier decision and grant them extension of their
residence permits for the same duration as their investment licence by the
Zimbabwe Investment Authority.
The
papers do not ventilate what fate befell the appeal but presumably it was
turned down for on 24 February 2011 the applicants' legal practitioners lodged
an appeal to the Co-Ministers of Home Affairs appealing against the Principal Director
of Immigration's decision not to extend their investor's residence permits. On
28 February 2011, the Secretary for Home Affairs wrote to the applicants' legal
practitioners acknowledging receipt of the appeal and advising that the Co-Ministers
were still considering the appeal and that if further assistance was required
they should approach the Department of Immigration with a copy of the letter.
Then, on 7 March 2011, the
applicants lodged an urgent chamber application in this court seeking a
Provisional Order whose interim relief sought is couched in these terms:
“INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
Pending the determination of this
matter, it is ordered that:
1.
First Respondent be and is hereby ordered to issue Applicants with Provisional
Restriction Notices valid for (90) ninety days and renewable until this matter
is finalised.
2. First respondent be and is
hereby ordered not to interfere with the business operations of the applicant
(sic) until this matter is finalised.
3. First respondent, his
officials or assigns be and are hereby interdicted from deporting or detaining
applicants and members of their families that is to say wives and minor
children.”
The applicants contend that to
date the total value of their investment stands at US$98,450= excluding “the
almost US$45,000=” put into infrastructural development projects such as the
outlet sales shop constructed at Number 31 Cameron Street. In January 2010,
immigration officials impounded the first applicant and his family's passports
without reason until 5 February 2011. It is due to this passport impound that
the applicants failed to meet the threshold of the Zimbabwe Investment
Authority licence to invest US$200,000= and capital equipment from abroad worth
US$450,000= as the first applicant could not travel outside the country without
a passport.
The respondents deny that the alleged passports
were impounded and aver that it is the first applicant who surrendered his
wife's and children's passports as surety. They contend that the applicants are
failed investors hence the refusal to renew their residence permits. The applicants
were accorded several opportunities since 2008 to implement their investment
project to no avail. The so-called factory at 24 South Avenue is not a factory
and the area is zoned for retail and not manufacturing. The applicants,
contrary to their investment licence terms, focused on retail via the sales
shop at 31 Cameron Street.
