admin
without impediment after the Supreme Court threw out a chamber application by businessman Mr Oliver Chidawu to block the transaction.
This would see TN being the major shareholder in Pelhams with about 36 percent shareholding.
Mr Chidawu was initially the owner of the shares in question but he lost them to Mr Shah after failing to pay back a US$2 million debt.
Mr Shah then sold the same shares to TN, a development that Mr Chidawu strongly opposed on the basis that the claim for the US$2 million was still before the High Court and that he was still contesting it.
An attempt to bar the sale of the shares flopped last month after the High Court dismissed Mr Chidawu’s urgent chamber application.
Mr Chidawu lost another case in which he sought to block the transfer of shares at the High Court prompting the businessman to file a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court.
Pending determination of the appeal, Mr Chidawu had now filed the chamber application seeking to bar the transfer of the disputed shares.
RELATED STORIES
The failed chamber application also sought to have the appeal set down for hearing earlier as an urgent matter.
But Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku last Friday threw out the application for lack of urgency.
The Supreme Court also found that the order sought was incompetent.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu appeared for TN Holdings while Advocate Lewis Uriri represented Mr Shah.
Advocate Happias Zhou acted for Mr Chidawu and his three companies.
Mr Chidawu’s three firms – Broadway Investments, Danoct Investments and Dannov Investments – formerly owned the shares in question.
The businessman borrowed US$2 million from Mr Shah to finance his companies and failed to pay back on time. This prompted Mr Shah, who was holding on to the three firms’ shares in Pelhams, to sell the shares to TN Asset Management.
The shares were sold on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange. In the dismissed urgent chamber application, Mr Chidawu argued that the initial agreement was that Mr Shah would loan him US$3 million.
But Mr Chidawu said Mr Shah failed to honour the agreement of US$3 million because he finally gave him US$2 million. He also argued that Mr Shah had already issued summons that he was strongly opposing.
Mr Chidawu argues that the sale was unlawfully conducted without allowing the court to consider the discrepancies he had raised.
Online Reporter