The court also found that the resolution which was not challenged was within the knowledge of
the 3rd Applicant. This position meets with a lot of contradiction from the affidavit in support
deponed by the 3rd Applicant. In paragraph 14 (c) the 3rd Applicant depones that;
“The consent was entered into by and between the 4th Respondent
purportedly on behalf of the 1st Applicant and the 1st - 3rd
Respondents without the authority, instructions or resolutions to
do so by the shareholders of the 1st Applicant Company.”
This in my view is a contradiction to the copy of resolution dated 12th November 2005 which
empowered the 4th Respondent. It is also a contradiction because of the fact that the 3rd Applicant
was party to this resolution. Taking into consideration this case, it is with no doubt based on
whether the 4th Respondent was empowered to enter into the consent judgment.
That contradiction is what the Respondents sought to clear by asking the 3rd Applicant to be
cross examined.
What I have noticed in this affidavit is that the 3rd Applicant also deposes that he is swearing on
behalf of his brothers Paul and Timothy Magezi. The unanswered question is where he got that
authority to answer on their behalf. This could have been answered by a document or established
under cross examination. It could not be established because the deponent did not attend.
Going through the affidavit the majority of the relevant paragraphs in the affidavit in support
hinge on what has been referred to as the impugned Consent Judgment obtained without
authority to do so.
The issue of authority which the 3rd Applicant disputes is key in these proceedings. In fact
without authority the 4th Respondent would not have bound the Applicants. Since there is a
6