Chegutu, has filed an urgent High Court application seeking to prevent DW directors and shareholders from interfering with its operations.
Court documents filed by Kithra said DW chief executive Mr Andrew Toendepi and his finance director Mr Zivanai Mangena were interfering with the performance of the lease contract.
This follows the dismissal of an urgent application by DW provisional judicial manager Winsley Mr Militala in respect of the status of his role at the textile firm.
Kithra was contracted by the Zimbabwe National Army to produce and supply 150 000 metres of camouflage material.
It then entered into a one-year lease deal with the troubled DW. The deal is worth about US$700 000.
According to the agreement, Kithra Enterprises is required to supply 15 000 metres of camouflage every week.
“The applicant (Kithra) is entitled to urgent relief allowing it access to the leased premises and completion of the toll contract with the ZNA,” read part of the application.
Kithra argued that despite the fact that the directors were majority shareholders of DW, this should not affect its operations.
In its founding affidavit to the High Court, Kithra argued that the provision of the judicial management was still in force and shareholders and directors “are obliged to respect the contract and not interfere with its performance in anyway whatsoever”.
Last week, Kithra wrote to DW advising of its intention to terminate the lease agreement at the end of April this year once it fulfils the ZNA order.
“This letter serves as official notice, according to our agreement, of our intention to terminate our lease as at the end of April 2011, plus or minus a few weeks,” the company said.
“Essentially, we wish to terminate our lease and cease operations once we have completed the camouflage order we are working on.”
However, DW directors are insisting that Kithra should continue leasing their premises for a year, according to the agreement.
Meanwhile, the High Court has dismissed an application in which one of DW shareholders was seeking an order to liquidate the company.
Merspic Enterprises, a five percent shareholder in the textile firm applied for liquidation, arguing that the resolution to indefinitely extend the order was “fraudulent”.
It said since Mr Militala’s report showed the company was beyond revival, there was no point in extending the reconstruction process.
It had been agreed at the creditors and shareholders’ meeting held recently that the period for provisional judicial management should be indefinitely extended to allow Mr Militala to prepare a comprehensive report in DW affairs.

You Might Also Like

Comments