KAROI TOWN COUNCIL v TELONE (PVT) LTD 2016 (2) ZLR 31 (H)

Flynote

Company: " private company formed at dissolution of a parastatal " legislationindicates whether it is a successor company

Company: " successor " assumes rights and obligations of the company it succeeds

Posts and telecommunications: " PTC " successor company to " assumes all rights and obligations of PTC

Headnote

The defendant company disputed the plaintiff council's charge for a shop licence fee for the premises on which it operated its telephone exchange. The defendant argued that it was exempt under s 3 and the First Schedule of the Shop Licences Act [Chapter 14:17], being the successor to the E Posts and Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), which had not been obliged to pay such fees. The Council was unable to prove its claim that the PTC had in fact previously paid such fees but proceeded to argue that TelOne was not a successor to the PTC and was therefore not exempt. The PTC, as a parastatal, was a statutory body, and TelOne, as the successor to the PTC, was a private company and hence could not claim exemptions granted to a parastatal. The defendant argued that, in terms of s 108 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05], it was clear that it was successor to the PTC and took over all rights and obligations of its predecessor.

Held, that ss 105 and 106 of the Act determined that the legislation made it clear that the defendant was a successor company. Since the provision for exemptions in the Schedule to the Shop Licences Act had not been amended, the defendant was entitled to the same exemption.