The applicant sought a declaratory order stating that the first respondent was in contempt of a court order which restricted him from transferring, alienating and or disposing of the 60% shareholding in the third respondent company. 

The court considered whether the first respondent was in contempt of court. It was held that the first respondent was indeed in contempt of an order issued by the same court in 2015.

When the first respondent argued that the transfer of shared occurred in 1997, the court examined the third respondent company’s annual returns from 2008 to 2015 which reflected share ownership to belong to two entities; Tanwood Ltd and Garwood Ltd. At the time neither Busa Ltd nor Queen Foreign Ltd appeared as shareholders. The court also examined a company search that was conducted in 2016 which reflected a change in shareholding; Queen Foreign Ltd was a majority shareholder. The court accepted the above as prima facie proof of contempt of court. The court relied on previous judgments that outlined the conditions that have to be met in order to legally prove that contempt of court occurred; it was held that all conditions were met.

As a result of contempt, the court disregarded the purported transfer of shares in the third respondent company and stated that the power of attorney had no effect whatsoever. The court awarded costs to the applicant. No fine was imposed.