Chidawu loses Pelhams appeal

Pelhams-LimitedJustice Anne-Mary Gowora dismissed an appeal by Mr Chidawu on the basis that the High Court had properly handled the matter.

This means TN Asset Management has been confirmed as the legitimate owner of the 380 million shares in Pelhams that previously belonged to Mr Chidawu.

TN Asset Management is now a major shareholder in Pelhams with about 36 percent shareholding.

Mr Chidawu borrowed US$3 million from businessman Mr Jayesh Shah but failed to fully service the debt leaving a balance of US$2,7 million.

As surety for the debt, Mr Chidawu and his companies, namely Broadway Investments, Danoct Investments and Dannov Investments, had to surrender certificates for shares they held in Pelhams.

Mr Shah later sold the 380 million shares in Pelhams to TN Asset Management and Mr Chidawu filed an urgent chamber application to stop the transaction.

The High Court ruled that the certificate of urgency was defective and that it failed to establish any urgency.

It was also the court’s finding that the certificate of urgency drafted by a lawyer, Ms Mapota, was no more than “parroting” another lawyer Ms Sarudzayi Njerere’s opinion that had been expressed in an earlier application.

The court found that Ms Mapota did a “copy and paste” of another lawyer’s earlier statement, thereby failing to address the patent and pertinent issues in the actual case before her.

Mr Chidawu filed an appeal at the Supreme Court contesting the decision, but on Tuesday Justice Gowora dismissed it again.

Justice Gowora noted that Mr Chidawu had all the time to oppose the sale and transfer of the shares, but failed to utilise it.

“As mentioned by the learned judge, (Mr) Shah had on two occasions issued threats to liquidate the security. There were letters written on behalf of (Mr) Chidawu in answer to the threats.

“The threats would have caused fear of irreparable harm yet there was no explanation as to why action was not taken soon after the threats were uttered to stop the sale of the shares.

“This assumes paramount importance regarding the fact that the shares had been tendered to Mr Shah in negotiable form and could be transferred without the need to notify any of the appellants,” read part of the judgment.

About the Author