Supreme Court of Zambia supports the decision from higher Court of Appeal regarding Portland Cement

Dr. Rajan Mahtani fought for the Zambezi Portland Cement for many years. The case was first appealed to the Lusaka High Court were the judge gave a misdirected decision even after dragging the case for more than a decade. However, Dr. Mahtani did not lose hope and approached the higher Court of Appeal under the required legal legislations. After around nine months of case proceedings, justice Mwinde on behalf of the higher Court of Appeal announced that Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments held 58 percent shares of the Portland Cement and was majority shareholder of the factory. On the other hand, Ventriglias owned Ital Terrazzo Limited held only 42 percent shares and therefore was the minority shareholder without any legal ownership. Based on this shareholding pattern, Dr. Rajan Mahtani becomes the majority shareholder and legal owner of the factory. This decision was given on 31st January 2019.

After almost two years since the announcement of the above decision, the Ventriglias filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Zambia. In their appeal, they claimed that the decision giving Dr. Mahtani majority shareholding of Portland Cement was incorrect. In their appeal, they also claimed that the actual amount payable to them against the shares provided to Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments was K580 million and not K580,000 as mentioned by the higher Court of Appeal. However, the Supreme Court bench comprising of three judges rejected this appeal from the Ventriglias based on several grounds. The first ground was legal as appeals against previous court decisions must be made within 14 days of the judgement itself. But the Ventriglias took more than a year and as such, the claim is rejected. The judges also indicated that the circumstances surrounding this appeal by the Ventriglias were dicey and even if the appeal was accepted, the judges have evaluated the evidences and their decision would have been similar to the higher Court of Appeal. Based on these grounds, the appeal by the Ventriglias was rejected.