President Edgar Lungu’s Special Assistant for Political Affairs Kaizer Zulu’s co-defendants have asked the Lusaka High Court to set aside the originating process against them for being irregular in a matter where they are accused of kidnapping and assaulting four men.
Chita Lodge Limited and its employee, Bella Mwanza, have stated that the four plaintiffs have failed to disclose their physical, postal and electronic address in the suit and thus it will be difficult to trace them in case of any court order.
In this matter, Bernard Nshindo, Sengelwayo Jere, Saul Masikoti who are qualified surveyors and businessmen as well as Mason Mweemba, a driver, have sued Zulu and his two acquaintances Mpange Kachingwe and Raffiq Rashid, for allegedly beating and kidnapping them on accusations that they were taking pictures of his speed boat at Chita Lodge in Kafue.
Others sued include the Attorney General, Chita Lodge Limited and Bella Mwanza, an employee of the said lodge.
The four are seeking damages for assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, among other claims.
And in an affidavit in support of summons to set aside writ of summons for irregularity filed in the Lusaka High Court, recently, Chita Lodge Limited and Mwanza, through their lawyer Nomankhosi Jere, stated that failure to disclose addresses of the plaintiffs made it impossible for the defendant to make a meaningful response.
She added consequently, the said failure also makes it impossible for the defendants to contact the plaintiffs should an order against the plaintiffs in the matter be ruled in favour of the defendants.
“I verily believe that the originating process is irregular and an abuse of the court process. Consequently, it is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to set aside the originating process for irregularity,” read the affidavit.
Jere stated that as a consequence of the irregularity, it would be impossible to trace the plaintiffs should an order for costs be made in favour of the defendants at the conclusion of the matter or to contact them about the proceedings should need arise.
“In conclusion, we are of the view that the failure to disclose the physical, postal and electronic address by the plaintiffs as prescribed by law, is an obstruction of justice that the rules of the court invariably intends to administer. We wish to state that based on the foregoing, the writ should be set aside and costs should be borne by the plaintiffs,” stated Jere.