Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Tony Renato Sarpo v Regis Maburutse (1) and Wayne Williams (2) and Matebeleland Engineering (Private) Limited (3)

HH 475-25

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
14 August 2025
Citation
HH 475-25
Neutral Citation
[2025] ZWHH 475
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
DEMBURE J
Full Bench
DEMBURE J
Areas of Law
Civil ProcedureCompany LawContempt of Court
Keywords
contemptcourt orderdirectorshareholderinterdictaffidavitcommission of oaths
Tags
Contempt of CourtCorporate GovernanceDirector Dispute
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • High Court Rules, 2021
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the first respondent's opposing affidavit is valid and should be considered","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The first respondent's affidavit was commissioned by DR N. NCUBE (PhD) but the stamp did not identify his capacity as commissioner of oaths"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the first respondent is in contempt of court","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The first respondent allegedly continued to act as a director and usurped the applicant's functions despite the court order"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the second respondent is in contempt of court","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The court order in para 3 only interdicted the first respondent, not the second respondent"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant sought a contempt of court order against the respondents for defying a High Court judgment that interdicted them from interfering with his functions as a director of the third respondent company. The applicant alleged the first respondent continued to hold himself out as a director and usurped the applicant's functions. The first respondent's opposition was struck off for being improperly commissioned, while the application against the second respondent failed because the court order did not impose any obligations on him.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →