Ferrochrome producer Zimasco (Private) Limited has lodged a formal complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against High Court judge Justice Joel Mambara, after Mambara granted a default judgment that placed Zimasco under corporate rescue, Mining Zimbabwe can report.
By Rudairo Mapuranga
Following the judgment, Avim Investments, represented by lawyer Wilson Manase, allegedly moved swiftly to seize Zimasco’s bank accounts in an apparent attempt to take over the company.
Zimasco argued that on February 13, 2025, Avim Investments filed a corporate rescue application (case number HOH685/25) on behalf of a company named Sinosteel Zimasco (Private) Limited. However, Zimasco emphasized that it is not Sinosteel Zimasco (Private) Limited, which had been referenced in the application, challenging the validity of the ruling against it.
The complaint states that Zimasco only became aware of the judgment on March 12, 2025, by which time its assets were already frozen. Zimasco claims that Justice Mambara’s ruling was based on fraudulent misrepresentations orchestrated by Shepherd Tundiya and Avim Investments through the agency of Manase and Valentine Kwandu.
Zimasco further noted that despite clear evidence of fraud, Justice Mambara proceeded with the judgment. The company accused the judge of acting willfully, alleging that the handling of the case involved deliberate manipulation of the legal system.
The company has also raised concerns over the suspicious allocation of the same judge to multiple related cases within hours, claiming that this points to a coordinated effort against Zimasco. Additionally, Zimasco questioned why applications for fresh matters were repeatedly referred to Justice Mambara, particularly regarding the improper corporate rescue application filed by Avim Investments.
The company now seeks an investigation into Justice Mambara’s conduct, asserting that his actions were inconsistent with judicial propriety. Zimasco called for the JSC to take appropriate steps to address the situation, as they believe the default judgment was secured unlawfully, in clear violation of legal procedures.
