This
is an urgent application for interim relief in the following terms:
“The
first respondent be and is hereby interdicted from alienating or otherwise
disposing of or dealing with the rights of the third and fourth respondents
arising out of the memoranda of understanding concluded between the applicants
and the first respondent at Harare on 25 July 2008 and 13 October 2006, pending
the outcome of an arbitration to be instituted by the applicants in Paris in
accordance with the afore mentioned memoranda of understanding;
The
first, third and fourth respondents be interdicted from amending, alienating or
changing the shareholding in and the share registers of the third and fourth
respondents pending the outcome of the arbitration referred to in prayer 1
above;
The
applicants be and are hereby ordered to institute the abovementioned
proceedings within sixty days of this order; and
Leave
be and is hereby granted to the applicants.”
The
matter could not be heard today because the first respondent only filed its
opposing papers this morning shortly before the hearing at 9:00 hours. The
parties are agreed that the matter be postponed sine die to enable the
applicants to go through the opposing papers and to file the necessary
responses.
The
applicants have now applied for an order substantially in the same format as
the interim order being sought in the main application to protect their
interests pending my determination in the main matter. The interim order sought
reads:
“The
application is postponed sine die.
1.
The applicants are ordered to give a replying affidavit by 31 January 2011.
2.
The parties are to give supplementary heads of argument by Thursday 3 February
2011.
3.
Pending the outcome of the hearing of this application:
3.1
The first, third and fourth respondents are interdicted from alienating or
otherwise disposing of or dealing with the mining rights, licenses and other
business interests of the third and fourth arising out of the Memoranda of
Understanding concluded between the applicants and the first respondent; and
3.2
The first, third and fourth respondents are interdicted from amending, altering
or changing the shareholding in and the registers of the third and fourth
respondents.”
The
application is strenuously opposed by the first respondent on the basis that
the applicants want to smuggle the order they are seeking in the main
application through the back door. Counsel for the first respondent, while viciously
opposing the order being sought, has undertaken to advise his clients not to
engage in the conduct complained of pending my determination.
It
is a general rule of law and practice that parties must desist from conducting
themselves in a manner that seeks to obstruct, pre-empt, undermine or sabotage
the outcome of court proceedings.
Generally
speaking, Zimbabweans are law-abiding citizens. In that regard, I do not see
the first respondent, a statutory Board for that matter, acting contrary to the
advice of its legal practitioners. For that reason I consider it wholly
unnecessary to grant the interim order sought pending my determination in the
main matter.
The
application for an interdict pending my determination in the main matter
accordingly fails with costs being costs in the cause.
The first respondent is, however, admonished to
abide by the advice of its legal practitioner regarding the maintenance of the
status quo ante pending my determination in the main matter.
