Challenge By Ventriglias Regarding Portland Cement Fails, Supreme Court Rejects Plea

Finsbury Investments is a noted company in Zambia owned by noted businessman Dr. Rajan Mahtani. The Zambezi Portland Cement factory was founded in the year 2004 and after that it went a series of changes, primarily in the area of shareholding patterns. In the year 2007, a final shareholding pattern was established according to which, Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments holds 58 percent shares of the Portland Cement Zambia and is the majority shareholder of the Portland Cement Zambia. On the other hand, Ventriglias owned Ital Terrazzo Limited holds just 42 percent shares at the factory and were identified as minority shareholders without any legal ownership over the factory. These changes were essential for the cement-manufacturing factory to obtain critical loans and further complete the manufacturing plant’s completion. Based on this shareholding pattern, Portland Cement Zambia was able to achieve required loans for its business operations.

However, the summer days for the Portland Cement Zambia was apparently short as the Ventriglias wanted to have the money and take

over the factory too. With political manuevers and unethical powers, they were able to take over control of the factory. When Dr. Rajan Mahtani registered a case at the Lusaka High Court, the Ventriglias again manipulated the results and the Lusaka High Court judge gave the judgement in favour of the Ventriglias. However, Dr. Rajan Mahtani challenged this decision at the higher Court of Appeal and was able to get justice based on real evidences and testimonials. On 31st January 2019, justice Mwinde on behalf of the higher Court of Appeal announced that Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments was the majority shareholder and legal owner of the factory with 58 percent shares at the factory.

The Ventriglias have now approached the Supreme Court of Zambia with an appeal that the decision from Court of Appeal is unbiased. However, after evaluation, a bench of Supreme Court judges have effectively rejected the case based on legal and ethical obligations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *