eBusiness Weekly
Hebert Zharare
The Master of High Court has said that Equity Properties, which is demanding the removal of Deposit Protection Corporation boss John Chikura and his agent, auditor Ngoni Kudenga as Interfin Bank liquidators, should present its case during confirmation of the next liquidation account in February next year.
Equity Propertiesm which is a former debtor and depositor of Interfin Bank accuses the pair of abusing payments by the bank’s clients alleging that it suffered heavy financial losses after the liquidators refused to release their Deed of Transfer for prime residential land held by the bank despite clearing its $3,2 million debt.
In its letter to the Master of High Court on October 20, Equity also indicated its intention to slap Chikura and Kudenga with an $11 million lawsuit emanating from prejudices the property firm suffered due to alleged misrepresentation of facts.
However, in response to Equity’s demands on Wednesday, also copied to Chikura and Kudenga, Additional Master — Insolvency at the Master of High Court, Reuben Mukavhi, acknowledged the property firm’s concerns, but said they were raised “way out of time”.
He, however, noted some of the concerns could be raised during the confirmation of the next liquidation account in February.
“You will notice that Section 282 (1) of the Companies Act permits objections to be raised to a liquidation account before that liquidation account is confirmed. The process is such that the liquidation account is filed with the Master, who then authorises its publication as lying for inspection by creditors, contributories or other interested persons. The account then lies for inspection for a period of at least 14 days.
“It is during that period that objections to the account may be lodged with the Master. In the case of Interfin Bank Limited, the last interim account was confirmed by the Master on 30 August 2017 after it has gone through the process I have described above. You then lodged your objection on 20 October 2017. Clearly therefore, your objection came way out of time,” wrote Mukavhi.
He advised Equity to lodge its case during the next interim liquidation account to be filed and gazetted in February next year.
A liquidation account is described in Section 279 (1) of the Companies Act as “an account of his (liquidator) receipts and payments and plans of distribution.”
It therefore follows that if any objection is to be raised about the account, it has to be in relation to the money received by the liquidator, the payments made and the plan he/she drafts for distribution of the free residue of the estate or company under liquidation.
The Master will handle only Equity’ objection to the interim liquidation accounts prepared by the liquidator. The Master then advised Equity to seek remedy in another forum and not the office of the Master for the other objections like the return of the title deed and claim for damages of $11 million.
In its response on Wednesday, Equity was agreeable to the proposal by the Master of High Court to lodge its objection to the next interim liquidation account by Chikura and Kudenga.
“Such advice will enable this matter to be resolved fairly and decisively for the good of many people because the liquidator’s accounts are objectionable,” the property firm argued.
In terms of Section 279 (1) of the Companies Act, the liquidator is required to lodge the next interim liquidation account within six months from the last date, which was August 30 2017. This means the next lodgement should be filed by 28 February 2018.
“Counting from today (Wednesday) it means that it is within the next four months that he (liquidator) must lodge the next interim liquidation account and to us it is not a long period to wait in view of the importance of the matter. As sure as the sun shall rise, we shall lodge our objection to the next interim liquidation account unless the issues we raised are addressed by the liquidator before then,” argued Equity.
The property company believes its objection to the liquidator will benefit many depositors of Interfin Bank and buyers of its more than 300 upmarket residential stands, whose tittle deeds were taken from the troubled bank by businessman Jayesh Shah’s company Al Shams Global BVI Limited (Al Shams Global).
Reports say the bank owed Al Shams Global tens of millions of dollars before it was placed on liquidation in 2015.
“For the record, we were not in a position to object to the interim liquidation account because we had not yet attached the assets Shah’s company Al Shams Global in terms of the court order under case number HC 3254/17 and such attachment enables us to recover damages of at least $10 million. Some of the attached assets are in the hands of the liquidator hence the above mentioned court order of attachment affects the plan of distribution of the money received by the liquidator.
“We appreciate that you have noted our notice as stated in paragraphs 43 and 45 or our letter dated 20 October 2017 and also confirmed by you on page 2 of your letter dated 30 October. This means our notice remains in force. For the record we gave a notice of 30 days that we intend to apply for the removal of the liquidator in terms of section 273 of the Companies Act and to sue the liquidator for both the return of our tittle deeds and damage of at least $11 million unless the issues we raised are addressed by the liquidator timely,” argued the property firm.
