HH 2: PF 0: HIGH COURT SAYS HH IS CLEAN AND RIGHTFUL OWNER OF FARM 1924 OF KALOMO.
The Lusaka High Court says UPND President Hakainde Hichilema is the rightful owner of kalomos farm number 1924 and has since dismissed with costs the matter in which the opposition leader had been dragged to court for criminal trespass and fraudulent acquisition of the said farm.

President Hichilema through his lawyer Marshal Mucheende of M and associates had asked the court to dismiss the matter for being statute barred as it was brought way after the statutory 12 year period in which a matter of such nature can be brought before court.
In her ruling High Court Judge Catherine Lombe Phiri said it was folly for the plaintiff to expect the court to believe that she was not aware of the defendants activities of fencing the said property and placing his workers on it to show the extent of its acquisition while Ministry of Lands documents have proven that the parties were aware of the transaction in 2005.

Judge Lombe Phiri said she finds the version of the plaintiff with regards to the transaction not only conflicting but also confusing hence her reliance on the version by the defendant which is backed by documents and find that the plaintiffs were in fact aware of the transfer of the property to the defendant whether by themselves or through the late Bernard Mazuba in 2005.

The court further found that in the event that the plaintiffs were not party to the transaction,they would have with reasonable diligence discovered the alleged fraud as the particulars of the transaction were available in a public register at the Ministry of Lands and had a duty as the Administrator of the Estate for the late Samson Siatembo to properly administer it to avoid dilapidation.

The Judge said the plaintiffs sat on their rights and has come too late in the day to attempt to stop the running of time by relying on fraud and added that section 26 of the limitation Act in relation to fraud and misrepresentation is clear as it provides that there ought to have been some reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff in order that fraud be relied upon hence not appropriate for her to rely on the said piece of law.

Judge Lombe Phiri in dismissing the matter said the right to sue rose in 2005 in accordance with section 4 and 10 of the Limitations Act hence dismissing it for being statute barred as it has been brought 16 years after instead of the mandatory 12 years.
The plaintiffs Pheluna Hatembo and Milton Hatembo were represented by Counsel L Mumba of Fred Jere and Company.
(C) UPND MEDIA TEAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

LATEST NEWS

10 COMMENTS

  1. Now counter sue them for costs so that they can run to their sponsors to ask for that money and see if their sponsors can pay them or not.

  2. Mwabona manje. Manjemanje muyenda mundende imwe. Omu tonga sure kocita bumpelenge kumu Tonga nyoko. Inoono bana balalya nhi? Hakainde ulalubweza lubono loonse mupenge. Mukala cibona caasubihya kwale kumulomo mwe. Chita taata. Tende ngulembwe! Mula muhukamina nguwena Hakainde, buyobuyo..chita.

  3. Also look for that puppy you call Tanyali, let him hold another press meeting and drink the urine he was drinking when he claimed he had evidence. Very soon he should be made to eat his own shit if he cannot pay the amount he had been sued for. Stupid idiot.

  4. Edith nawakwi and chilufya tayali are the Losers in this case. They were using the poor lady for their own selfish interests. Even if they were relying on fraud, I see that the plaintiff failed to present any documents to that effect whilst the defendant had organised and presented credible evidence. Shame on Nawakwi and rabid dog Tayali!!

  5. Did the plaintiff’s lawyer NOT KNOW about the statutory 12 year limitation. Why would a lawyer agree to defend a case that he knows violates the statutory time limit? He should bear some responsibility for court costs.

  6. Mwa Lungu, are so many masquerades, look at KCM saga, who is the liquidator? Who kept the Minister’s illegally in office? Who did not hand over and take over power when there was a petition? Who mutilated the Post assets? Who supplied the 42 wheel barrows? Who presided over the fraudulent liquidation of the Post? Are you telling me that all the ones involved are not lawyers?

  7. Tweende Mucende acitima. One PF down two hoodlams to go( Nawaakwi and Tayali)
    Hammer them below their bellies by vigorously pursuing them the cases you have already have in court against them. Lesson for the two fools- REFUSE to be used by your sponsors otherwise you are inviting more poverty in homes

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here