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

Zimbabwe Diamond & Allied Minerals Workers’ Union v RioZim Limited and Master of the High Court N.O. and The Registrar of Companies N.O.

HH 467-25

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
5 August 2025
Citation
HH 467-25
Neutral Citation
[2025] ZWHH 467
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Urgent Application

Bench

Presiding
Dembure J
Full Bench
Dembure J
Areas of Law
Insolvency LawLabour LawCorporate Law
Keywords
Corporate RescueMoratoriumAsset DisposalLocus StandiUrgencyInterdict Pendente Lite
Tags
Corporate RescueInterdictInsolvencyMoratorium
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Insolvency Act
  • Insolvency Act
  • Insolvency Act
  • Insolvency Act
  • Insolvency Act
  • Insolvency Act
  • Insolvency Act
  • Insolvency Act
  • Labour Act
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the applicant's board of directors is deemed dissolved under s 130(2) of the Insolvency Act at the stage of a pending corporate rescue application, rendering the opposition invalid.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The corporate rescue application was filed but not yet determined."}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the urgent chamber application is procedurally defective due to an incorrect dies induciae.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The application specified a 24-hour period for filing notice of opposition."}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the urgent application.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The applicant is a trade union representing employees."}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the matter is urgent.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The applicant filed the application two days after the cautionary statement."}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to an interdict pending the corporate rescue proceedings.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The moratorium under s 127 of the Insolvency Act."}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the intended disposals are in the ordinary course of business under s 127(1)(a)(i) of the Insolvency Act.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The company's core business is mining; the disposals involve mining and non-core assets."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant, a trade union, filed an urgent chamber application to interdict the first respondent company from disposing of its mining and non-core assets. This application was filed pending the determination of a separate corporate rescue application (HCH 1945/25) which the applicant had initiated against the company. The applicant sought to preserve the company's assets, arguing that the disposals would violate the moratorium under the Insolvency Act and defeat the purpose of the pending corporate rescue proceedings.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →