Justice System Of Zambia Did Not Fail, Court Of Appeal Provides Transparent Judgement On ZPC Case

The decision on the Zambezi Portland Cement case is finally out. This decision was given on 31^st January 2019 and by justice Mwinde. According to the court’s decision, Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments is the majority shareholder of the cement factory with 58 percent shares. On the other hand, Ventriglias owned Ital Terrazzo Limited owns 42 percent shares and is the minority shareholder of the Zambezi Portland Cement. This decision from the Court of Appeal aligns with original Shareholders Agreement established in the year 2007 and as per this; Dr. Rajan Mahtani is the legal owner of the factory.

A timeline of three months from the judgment date has been given by the Court of Appeal. During this time, the parties are required to complete the regularization process for the shares and this process must be according to the new judgment at the Court of Appeal.

Justice Mwinde also shared critical details associated with the case. One of these details included the payment made by Finsbury Investments to the court on 6^th February 2019. Finsbury Investments paid a sum of K580,000,000 with interest to the Zambian High Court in response in Commercial Registration of the Zambezi Portland Cement. This payment was made in compliance with the court judgment. At the same time, Finsbury Investments also claimed a sum of K1 billion with interest and this claim is against the payment established on 27^th July 2005 against entire share capital issued for Zambezi Portland Cement. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal has confirmed this claim with evidence of share transfers made during January 2007 as well as December 2006. Thus, the claim made by Finsbury Investments is valid and therefore, the shareholding pattern described earlier is also validated.

Furthermore, several reports & publications were found during this time which contrasted the judgment of the Court of Appeal and alleged foul play. However, all these publications were found to be inconsistent with the decision of Court of Appeal and also were without any proof or evidence.