Dr. Rajan Mahtani Was Announced The Winner Of Zambezi Portland Cement Case and given the legal ownership

If one were to believe the factual details and evidences, the decision from the Court of Appeal will absolutely make sense. The case is about Zambezi Portland Cement, a noted cement manufacturing factory which was being contested by two major business parties in Zambia. One of them is Dr. Rajan Lekhraj Mahtani, a noted businessman and philanthropist. The case was initially registered at the Lusaka High Court and the final decision from the court came from Justice Nkonde during May 2018. This judgement from Lusaka High Court was extremely controversial as it was without any evidence or proof and against the interest of the public policy. The Lusaka High Court announced that Ventriglias were the only shareholders of the Zambezi Portland Cement. After this decision, Dr. Rajan Mahtani approached the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal made its final decision on 31st January 2019, around nine months after the controversial decision from Lusaka High Court. The judgement from the Lusaka High Court was given by Justice Mwinde who also said that the judge below him was wrong in declaring Ventriglias as the only shareholders without any evidence or proof. As per the decision from the Court of Appeal, Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments owns 58 percent shares at the factory and is the majority shareholder of the Zambezi Portland Cement factory. On the other hand, the Ventriglias own 42 percent shares at the factory and are the minority shareholders. As per this shareholding pattern, Finsbury Investments is the clear winner of the Zambezi Portland Cement case.

While this decision from the Court of Appeal clearly establishes the final judgement and fate of the cement manufacturing factory, it also highlights several shortcomings of the Zambian legal and justice system because of which honest and transparent citizen such as Dr. Rajan Mahtani suffer often. It is time for the government to start taking serious actions against courts providing misdirected and wrongful judgement on purpose.