BY Staff Reporter
HIGH Court judge Justice Webster Chinamora on Monday dismissed with costs an urgent chamber application by Oniyas Zidanda Gumbo who was seeking an interdict to stop his rivals in Watermount Farm ownership wrangle to utilise the land.
Justice Chinamora dismissed the urgent chamber application on the basis that it lacked locus standi as there was no proof that Gumbo was the director of Watermount since documents before the court show that he resigned from the company as director on November 30, 2004.
Gumbo, the second applicant in the matter, represented by Advocate Thabani Mpofu is claiming ownership of the remainder of Craig Crag Estate and Lot 1 of East Anglia both under Watermount Estates (Private) Limited, cited as the second applicant.
According to papers filed at the High Court, Gumbo claimed that he bought Michael James Reimer’s entire shares in Watermount for $13 million which was however disputed by the respondents in the matter.
In papers he filed, he sought to stop the respondents Christopher Wesley Takura Tande, and his companies TBIC Investments and Equity properties, and Orion Properties from subdividing or selling part of land which is in dispute.
He claims that Tande fraudently altered records at the companies registry to remove his name in Watermount interests.
But the respondents argue that every person who was making development at the land in dispute was invited by the directors of Waterfront hence the company could not be seeking an interdict against itself.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
In September, Gumbo and his company Watermount filed an application seeking an order to compel the respondents to vacate the premises within five days but the respondents were disputing his directorship at Waterfront. They stated that Gumbo had not provided the court with proof that indeeed he was the a director or a shareholder at Watermount.
The High Court gave an interim order for the repsondent to stop developing in the disputed area, pending hearing of the matter.
In his ruling on the urgent chamber application, Justice Chinamora stated that Gumbo had no authority to bring the application on his own behalf or on behalf of Watermount.
“In dealing with a case where an applicant is litigating on the basis of a claimed shareholding in the company, he must show the existence of such shares,” said Justice Chinamora.
In opposing affidavits, the respondents also disputed that the matter was urgent, arguing that when some structures on the contested land was demolished by the first applicant in 2018 to give way for house development, no action was taken to stop the 2nd applicant from developing the land.
