Ownership Of Zambezi Portland Cement Remains Unchanged, SC Announces Verdict On Claim By Ventriglias

Finsbury Investments is a noted investments firm owned by Dr. Rajan Lekhraj Mahtani, a celebrated businessman in Zambia. The company is known for reviving several difficult organizations across Zambia. One of them is Zambezi Portland Cement. After an official shareholders’ agreement established in the year 2007, the ownership of Zambezi Portland Cement was given to Finsbury Investments via 58 percent share ownership. This transfer was essential has Finsbury Investments had the credibility of obtaining loans from banks as well as funds from financial institutions. These funds and capital were utilised not only for finishing the construction of the plant, but also for expanding the market by obtaining new projects.

However, the Zambezi Portland operations halted when the Ventriglia family disrupted the operations by questioning the legality of the shareholders instrument. The family also went as far as hiring goons for taking over the factory in an unethical manner. While Dr. Rajan Mahtani did not right thing by approaching the Lusaka High Court, the case was dragged for more than a decade. Despite this, no justice was given to Dr. Rajan Mahtani as the Lusaka High Court judge announced that Ventriglias are the only shareholders of the Portland Cement Zambia. However, Dr. Rajan Mahtani was able to contend this unethical decision at the higher Court of Appeal. On 31st January 2019, justice Mwinde on behalf of the higher Court of Appeal announced that Dr. Rajan Lekhraj Mahtani is the majority shareholder and legal owner of the Portland Cement Zambia factory and the decision from the Lusaka High Court was misdirected.

Once again, the Ventriglia family tried to disrupt the smooth business operations of Zambezi Portland by approaching the Supreme Court and challenging the decision from the higher Court of Appeal. However, a bench of three judges established by the Supreme Court found that this appeal by the Ventriglias did not fulfil any legal requirement and was conspicuous. As a result, this appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court.