Can a Zimbabwean law or decree apply in South Africa? The answer should be no but the facts of the CFI transaction suggest otherwise.

Can a Zimbabwean law or decree apply in South Africa? The answer should be no but the facts of the CFI transaction suggest otherwise.

The facts that the JUROL INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM team has interrogated in relation to the matter under Case Number HC 11762/04 that was launched by Riverridge Private Limited (RPL) and Rivveridge Trading Private Limited (RTPL) in the High Court of Zimbabwe against the extrajudicially appointed Administrator of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM).

The above-mentioned application was issued on 28 October 2004. The facts set out in the founding affidavit are common cause:

A copy of the share transfer certificate is set out below:

A copy of a letter below set out how the transfer of shares held by RPL and RTPL were transferred to SMM (under reconstruction) without the knowledge and consent of CFI:

A self-explanatory letter from Rayberry International to the then Chairman of CFI, the later Mr. Abner Botsch is set out below

Gwaradzimba in his affidavit in opposition to the application summarized the transaction that led to the acquisition of shares in Rayberry in the BVI as follows:

The link between SAS, a South African registered entity, and SMM under reconstruction in relation to the Rayberry matter is as set out below:

Below Gwaradzimba confirms that although SMM was not a party to the Rayberry matter, shares held by RPL and RTPL were extra-judicially transferred to SMM as set out below:

Set out below are averments that confirm that an offshore transaction was dealt with in terms of Zimbabwean law:

The letter set out below clearly exposes the fact that South Africa was treated as a province of Zimbabwe in that the SAS affairs were treated as if this company was regulated in terms of Zimbabwean law:

Below is a diagrammatic representation of the Rayberry transaction as per Gwaradzimba’s affidavit:

A dispute has arisen as to whether SA courts had any jurisdiction to hear the matter let alone engage in the self-help scheme that resulted in the alteration of the claimed amount by SMM from SAS.

Set out below is another company called Southern Asbestos (PTY) LLC which was incorporated in the UK but was unconnected to SAS Pty Limited as set below:

Below is a judgment granted in SA based on ENS INC’s prosecution of the purported SMM claim against SAS on the basis that SA law permitted the set-off that informed the computation of this fraudulent claim in judicial proceedings following the rejection of the same claim by the Master of the High Court:

Below is a link to the court papers in relation to the CFI matter: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/b7934a19dc.html.

Another interesting expose of the SAS and CFI link is set out in this affidavit deposed to by Gwaradzimba: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/411e70c4ea.html.