Zambezi Portland Case Finally Restored Permanently With Verdict Of Sc On Claim By Ventriglias

In the light of the recent decision given by the Supreme Court Zambia on the claim by the Ventriglia family, it can be said that the matter for Zambezi Portland Cement factory is finally resolved. Despite the significant verdict from higher Court of Appeal judge Mwinde on 31st January 2019, the Ventriglias still tried to disrupt the smooth functioning and operations of the Zambezi Portland Cement factory. Dr. Rajan Lekhraj Mahtani is a noted businessman and philanthropist in Zambia. He had initially registered a case at the Lusaka High Court after unethical takeover of the Portland Cement Zambia factory. Despite having all evidences and testimonials, the judge at the Lusaka High Court failed to ensured transparency in the verdict and announced Ventriglias as the only shareholders of the Portland Cement Zambia factory.

Dr. Rajan Lekhraj Mahtani then took the case to the higher Court of Appeal where all evidences and testimonials were reviewed in a transparent manner. Justice Mwinde then announced that based on the evidences, Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments posses 58 percent shares of the Portland Cement Zambia and is the majority shareholder and legal owner of the factory. It was also confirmed that the Ventriglias owned Ital Terrazzo Limited held on 42 percent shares and did not have any legal ownership over the factory. Furthermore, amount payable against majority shares was finalized to be K580,000 as opposed to K580 million demanded by the Ventriglias.

After the Ventriglia family challenged the above Court of Appeal decision at the Supreme Court Zambia, it was evaluated by a bench of three SC judges. Upon investigation, it was found that the Ventriglia family was required to establish its claim against the Court of Appeal within two weeks of the court judgement which was on 31st January 2019. The Ventriglias approached with their appeal only after 1.5 years which automatically makes this case outside the SC jurisdiction. As a result, the claim by the Ventriglias was rejected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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