Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Portlook Security (Pvt) Ltd v Jackson Muguti and Jacinth & Associates Debt Collectors (Pvt) Limited

HH 179-17

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
15 March 2017
Citation
HH 179-17
Neutral Citation
[2017] ZWHH 179
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
Mangota J
Full Bench
Mangota J
Areas of Law
Company lawCommercial litigation
Keywords
Section 318 Companies ActPiercing corporate veilDirector liabilityFraudulent conduct
Tags
Corporate veil piercingDebt collectionFraudulent conduct
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Companies Act [Chapter 24:03]
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the corporate veil should be pierced to hold the first respondent personally liable for the company's debt under s 318(1)(c) of the Companies Act","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"First respondent channeled proceeds to personal account; acted in personal capacity; failed to rebut allegations"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant company contracted the second respondent debt collection company to collect debts on its behalf. The second respondent collected $35,000 but only remitted $13,500, leaving $21,500 unaccounted for. After a deed of settlement reduced the amount to $20,500 and a consent order was entered, the second respondent still failed to pay. The applicant then sought to pierce the corporate veil and hold the first respondent, a director of the second respondent, personally liable under s 318(1)(c) of the Companies Act.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →