Makarau JCC asserts that a company’s rights perish when a deponent is disabled by a predatory government.

Makarau JCC dismissed an application by Mr. Mutumwa Mawere for her recusal in the matter under case number CCZ 11/22 in relation to an application that Mr. Mawere under Case number 10/22 was an applicant seeking the leave of the Constitutional Court to intervene in the application launched by Mr. Mupasiri under Case Number CCZ 34/21 seeking the court’s determination of whether the President had breached his oath of office.

As Makarau JCC correctly observed: “At the center of the application for her recusal was a dispute regarding her decision to dismiss an application launched by THZ Holdings Limited (THZH), a company incorporated in terms of the United Kingdom laws, against Zimre Holdings Limited (ZHL) and the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE) under Case Number HC 542/05 whose hearing was consolidated with that of ZHL v ZSE&TZH under Case Number 632/05.”

Below is an extract from the Makarau JCC judgment in relation to the recusal application.

Makarau JCC was the Presiding Judge in this matter as follows:

In order to understand the dispute in a holistic context, it is important to use the first paragraph of Makarau JCC’s judgment.

Prior to the setdown of the application by THZH, Mr. Gwaradzimba, whose relationship with SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM), the company whose control and management was divested from its sole shareholder, SMM Holdings Limited (SMMH), a company incorporated in terms of the UK laws, was pursuant to an extrajudicial order issued by the then Minister of Justice, Hon Patrick Chinamasa whose effect was to dismiss the SMM board and substitute the power, right and capacity to control SMM by his appointee.

The said Administrator’s Notice is set out below:

Set out below is the rest of the Gwaradzimba notice:

The ownership structure of the companies listed in the Gwaradzimba’s notice was included in the notice as follows:

By Makarau JCC stating in her judgment that: “Due to Gwaradzimba’s notice, the matter was postponed pending his joinder as a party to that application,” it was already clear that the due and proper administration of justice was already thwarted inside the Makarau JCC court.

No one would expect an independent and impartial judge to stop the wheels of justice to enable a thief to join a BONA FIDE process towards a just and equitable outcome.

The people who knew how devious Makarau is already knew that she had shown her hands and the rest is history.

Who would have thought that Makarau JCC was blind to her oath and would do the unthinkable and unconscionable to give an audience to a product of statute whose to undermine the rule of law with the court as the key cheerleader?

The reality is that Makarau JCC knowingly and intentionally made this possible fully knowing that the effect of her order to anticipate a joinder application by an organ of state was solely intended to deprive the shareholder and directors of the right to control and manage companies that had no shareholding nexus with SMM without following the prescripts of the law.

HOW DID MAKARAU USE HER JUDICIAL POWERS TO UNDERMINE THZH’S SHAREHOLDING RIGHTS?

1. The first stage was to give the audience to Gwaradzimba to intervene in the proceedings between THZH and ZHL. It is important to note that the only reason that compelled THZH to intervene is that its subsidiary company, Endurite Properties Private Limited (Endurite) had also been hijacked by Gwaradzimba, and in terms of the special law that President Mnangagwa has acknowledged under oath that he knew everything about the affairs of SMM, an aggrieved party with the actions of the Administrator, had no right to access the courts without his permission.
2. The court knew that THZH was a foreign-registered company as set out below:

Makarau knew that THZH held about 46.55% of the total issued shares in ZHL and understood the implications of her judgment on the intended hijacking of the company using public power.

It is worth highlighting that Makarau JCC after 17 years under oath, would misrepresent the facts as recorded in her judgment. In her judgment in 2005, she used the specification as the reason for her finding that a specified person in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act loses his rights and freedoms that were entrenched in terms of the constitution of the time.

In a capricious manner, she asserts in her recusal matter that Mawere was disabled from deposing to the affidavit on behalf of the THZH’s complaint by virtue of the provisions of the Reconstruction Act which is not the correct version.

This is what she stated in her judgment of 2005: