Tetrad hits brick wall

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
Tetrad Holdings’ attempt to claim back more than $144 000 fees it paid to the judicial manager of its troubled investments bank has failed at the High Court.

Mr Winsley Militala, through his company, Petwin Executive and Trust (Pvt) Ltd, charged $144 900 for the work he did for the bank in February last year. In addition to the February fees, the judicial manager submitted four fee notes with a combined claim of $274 563 for the period March to June the same year.

Tetrad paid the fees charged following a ruling in June last year by the Master of the High Court, Mr Eldard Mutasa, confirming the fees but as it considered the fees were too high it approached the High Court for a review.

However, Justice David Mangota ruled that the court carefully considered all the grounds which Tetrad Holdings advanced for review of Mr Mutasa’s decision.

“It was satisfied that none of the grounds which the applicant advanced had any merit,” he said. “The application was, in the court’s view, an exercise in futility. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.”

In its review application Tetrad Holdings wanted the court to set aside the decision of the Master of the High Court and order a refund of $144 900 paid to Mr Militala plus interest.

Further Tetrad sought an order interdicting the Master of High Court and Deposit Protection Corporation, also listed as respondents, from making any further payments without a court order.

Through its lawyer Advocate Julia Wood, Tetrad argued that the Master of the High Court acted grossly unreasonably in the matter. Adv Wood accused the Master of High Court of accepting Mr Militala’s February invoice without requesting proper proof of how he allocated his time to his work.

The Master of High Court, she argued, neglected to draft a proper bill of costs. Adv Wood also questioned Mr Militala’s appointment, saying it was illegal under the Banking Act. But Justice Mangota agreed with Adv Thabani Mpofu who acted for Mr Militala that the Master of the High Court’s decision could not be faulted in view of the circumstances surrounding the application.

“The court established that Militala was properly and validly appointed in terms of the law,” said Justice Mangota. “It accepted that he (Militala) worked for the bank as its provisional judicial manager. He necessarily had to receive remuneration for his work.”

The judge also agreed with Adv Mpofu that the Master of the High Court was charged with the responsibility of fixing judicial managers’ remuneration in terms of the law.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey