Merlin court case crumbles

THE Supreme Court has abandoned an appeal by Merlin Limited judicial manager, Mr Cecil Madondo, against a High Court ruling after he failed to follow it up within the specified timeframe.

On the 8th of November 2018 under case number 2724/18, Justice Martin Makonese, sitting in the High Court in Bulawayo, ruled that the judgment of the court in HC 2353/11, which placed Merlin (Private) Limited under judicial management, did not in any way affect the status of Merspin Limited.

Consequently, Merlin Limited was declared as a fictitious and non-existent company. Following the High Court judgment on the matter, Mr Madondo through his lawyers, Mabuye Zvarevashe-Evan, on November 14, 2018, filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment.

According to the Supreme Court papers, after filing the appeal, Mr Madondo was supposed to have complied with Rule 1 (11) for the inspection of the record within the time specified in terms of the Supreme Court rules, 2018.

“Reference is made to the Notice of Appeal you filed on November 14, 2018. It is noted that you did not comply with Rule 17 (11) for the inspection of the record within the time specified in terms of the Supreme Court rules, 2018,” reads part of the Supreme Court document, dated 30 January 2019.

“In terms of Rule 17 (12) of the aforementioned rules, the appeal is deemed as to have been abandoned.”

In an interview, executive director for Maydeep Investments (shareholders for Merspin and Merlin Limited), Mr Danisa Nkomo said: “From our last application at the High Court, where we successfully asked the court to declare that the order that (Mr) Madondo is holding has nothing to do with Merspin, Madondo proceeded to appeal against that order at the Supreme Court and he didn’t follow up the appeal. And the Supreme Court has actually communicated that the appeal was abandoned because he did not follow it up.”

Mr Nkomo said their concern as shareholders was Mr Madondo’s continued interference with the Merspin and Merlin business purporting to be the judicial manager of the two entities.

This, he said, was detrimental to the investment that the shareholders of the two companies were trying to bring in.