By Feni Hiveluah
Imprint Investments seeks to overturn Judge Schimming-Chase’s ruling, arguing it conflicts with a 2023 High Court judgment and threatens control of manganese project, which they have been developing for the last five years, without High Power Holdings (Pty) Ltd involvement.
On 4 June 2026, Schimming-Chase issued an order effectively restoring two directors linked to the South African High Power Holding (Pty) Ltd (HPH) to their former positions within Imprint Investments (Pty) Ltd.
The decision comes despite an earlier High Court judgment delivered by Judge Collins Parker on 3 August 2022, which Imprint says settled the merits of the dispute relating to the company’s governance and shareholding structure. HPH attempted to amend their originating particulars to have the 23 December 2021 meeting and resolution nullified.
Judge Parker dismissed this application, with cost and the application to amend was finalized and removed from the roll, on the 03 August 2022. High Power Holdings proceed to the Supreme Court of Namibia, and the case was heard by Chief Justice Shivute, Justice Dave Smuts and Justice Angula and the matter was struck from the role of the 25th of June 2025.
According to court documents, Imprint argues that the two judgments are contradictory.
“Parker and Schim- ming-Chase issued conflicting orders based on the same facts. As both judges serve in courts of equal standing. Schimming-Chase’s decision was improper because Parker’s order was never formally set aside or varied,” the documents state.
Imprint Investments has since launched an urgent application seeking clarification, variation or rescission of the 4 June 2026 ruling, describing the order as “void and obtained by fraud”.
At the centre of the dispute is whether HPH remains a 42.5 percent shareholder in Imprint Investments.
Imprint maintains that HPH abandoned the project following a failed exploration programme on EPL 3963 in 2020. The company claims HPH subsequently issued formal notices on 7 December 2020 and 14 February 2021 indicating its intention to relinquish its 42.5% shareholding and requesting repayment of their loan they had invested, after they breach their share acquisition agreement and never perfected it to this day.
According to Imprint, these notices to relinquish the shares and demand payment, were delivered to the offices of HPH representative Shakwe Nyambe and acknowledged in terms of Section 108 of the Companies Act.
“Information was withheld from Schimming-Chase that HPH had formally relinquished its 42.5 percent shareholding and demanded repayment of its loan following the failed exploration programme on EPL 3963,” the court documents state.
Imprint further argues that, following HPH’s withdrawal, a board meeting held on 23 December 2021 where both former directors Wiseman Khumalo and Eugene Lottering was invited, as per 21 days’ Notice as per the Company Act 2004, which they opted not to attend. The meeting adopted special resolutions cancelling HPH’s shareholding as per HPH notices to relinquish their shareholding and at the meeting
Imprint recognize a debt of N$4.57 million for the funds HPH had invested in the project as an interest free loan.
The company contends that Judge Schimming-Chase’s ruling overlooks these developments and runs contrary to the legal principle of res judicata, which prevents courts from rehearing matters that have already been conclusively decided.
Imprint’s legal team also argues that HPH-appointed directors Wiseman Khumalo and Eugene Lottering automatically vacated their positions under the company’s Articles of Association after being absent from board activities for more than 12 months.
The company further states that since HPH’s departure in December 2020, Imprint start an exploration programme on EPL 3980 which is 51km away from EPL 3963 and the project has grown from a greenfield operation to a fully developed mining Infrastructure.
Imprint says it has exported more than 8,871 metric tonnes of manganese to China and secured supply agreements with Glencore International, all without HPH’s involvement or financial support.
“Even if a valid corporate mechanism existed, Judge Schimming-Chase was fundamentally barred from granting HPH relief if a final judgment on the merits had already been issued. Once Judge Parker delivered a final order settling the dispute, the matter became res judicata,” the documents state.
