{"issue_text":"Whether second defendant held 51% shares as nominee for plaintiff","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Shareholding structure, parties' agreement, conduct after formation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether transfer of shares to foreign resident violates exchange control regulations","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Plaintiff's foreign resident status, s 13(1) Exchange Control Regulations"}
{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiff remained shareholder after redeeming capital","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Capital redemption without statutory compliance, Companies Act provisions"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
A Belgian national plaintiff invested US$74,400 in a Zimbabwean restaurant company and claimed entitlement to 51% shareholding held by second defendant as his nominee. The plaintiff redeemed his capital contribution but continued receiving payments. Dispute arose when plaintiff demanded transfer of the 51% shares.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases