By
Zimasco (Pvt) Ltd, one of Zimbabwe’s leading ferrochrome producers and a subsidiary of Sinosteel Corporation, has issued a cautionary statement to its stakeholders, warning against any directives from Wilson Manase concerning the company’s affairs. This follows a recent ruling by the High Court, which barred Manase from acting as the corporate rescue practitioner for Zimasco.
The High Court granted an interdict in favor of Zimasco, preventing Manase from presenting himself as the corporate rescue practitioner. However, Zimasco is now awaiting a final decision on a declaratory application, which seeks to clarify that the court order does not apply to the company’s operations. Alternatively, the company is also seeking the court’s intervention to rescind or set aside the order entirely.
Zimasco has raised concerns over the legal actions taken by Shephard Tundiya’s Avim Investments (Private) Ltd and its legal representatives, Kwande Legal Practitioners. The company claims that Avim Investments attempted to file a notice of appeal against the High Court ruling without first obtaining leave from the court, which is a procedural requirement for appeals against interlocutory orders. Zimasco believes that these legal maneuvers are intended to create the false impression that the court ruling has been suspended, thus enabling Avim Investments and its associates to advance what the company describes as an “illicit plan” against its operations.
Despite these actions, Zimasco has made it clear that the High Court interdict applies specifically to Sinosteel Zimasco (Pvt) Ltd and does not affect Zimasco (Pvt) Ltd itself. The company has therefore urged its stakeholders to disregard any instructions from Wilson Manase related to its business operations, emphasizing that such directives would be based on a misinterpretation of the court order.
The dispute over the corporate rescue process highlights the broader challenges faced by Zimbabwe’s ferrochrome sector, which has been grappling with operational difficulties amid global market fluctuations and regulatory challenges. In instances of financial distress, corporate rescue practitioners are sometimes appointed to oversee restructuring efforts, but disagreements over the legitimacy and authority of such appointments can result in prolonged legal battles, as seen in Zimasco’s case.
Zimasco has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring legal clarity in this matter, reiterating that the High Court ruling does not interfere with its day-to-day operations. The company is now awaiting the court’s final decision on its application for a declaratory ruling or the potential rescinding of the court order.
As Zimbabwe’s ferrochrome industry navigates the complexities of legal and economic challenges, Zimasco’s ongoing case serves as an important precedent in corporate governance and legal compliance within the sector.
Comments