AIR ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD & ANOR V NHUTA & ORS 2014 (2) ZLR 333 (S)

Flynote

Aviation — Air Zimbabwe Corporation — successor company to — whether more than one successor company could be formed — other companies subsequently formed in Air Zimbabwe "stable" — not successor companies to Air Zimbabwe Corporation and not enjoying protection of State $\triangleright$ Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14]

Headnote

The first respondent was a former employee of Air Zimbabwe Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, the second appellant. An award for outstanding wages and benefits had been made in his favour. He had subsequently, in September 2012, registered the award as an order of the High Court. He proceeded to execute and the disputed assets were attached by the Deputy Sheriff. They were released after promises were made to pay the first respondent, but when those promises were not fulfilled the assets were attached again. The assets belonged to the second appellant, by whom the first respondent was employed.

The appellants brought an application in the High Court, seeking the release of the seized assets. They alleged that, by virtue of the provisions of s 8 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2012, as read with the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14], the attachment of the appellants' property to satisfy debts owed by either the first or the second appellant was in violation of the law and therefore illegal. Section 8, they argued, was enacted with the sole purpose of protecting, from attachment or execution, the property of the appellants as the successor companies of the Air Zimbabwe Corporation. The section referred to the Corporation "or any successor company". The appellants' argument was that the word "any" was meant to convey that any company formed by the shareholder or Board of the National Airline would automatically enjoy the immunity provided and that the second appellant is such a successor company and would enjoy the immunity. The judge a quo rejected this contention. On appeal:

Held, that it was clear from ss 2, 3 and 9A of the Air Zimbabwe Corporation (Repeal) Act, 1998 that only one successor company was contemplated by the Legislature. Had the appellants' contention to the contrary been correct, the Legislature would have expressed itself in words which lent themselves clearly and unambiguously to the meaning contended for by the appellants. It was not the intention of the Legislature to extend such immunity to an indeterminate number of companies some shareholders or Board somewhere could think of floating.