Raphael Nakacinda and George Kangwa have appealed to the Court of Appeal against the entire judgement of the Lusaka High Court, which declared Nevers Mumba as the Movement for Multiparty Democracy’s (MMD) legitimate president.
The two have also applied for a stay of execution of the High Court judgement as they await determination of their appeal.
Nakacinda and Kangwa have cited MMD acting National Secretary for the Nevers Mumba faction, Winnie Zaloumis, as the respondent in the matter.
Last Tuesday, Lusaka High Court Judge Sharon Newa declared a convention held in 2016, which elected Felix Mutati, Nakacinda and others as office bearers, null and void.
She further ordered the Registrar of Societies to immediately rectify the register of office holders of MMD to those before the 2016 convention was held.
Justice Newa ruled that Mutati, having been expelled from the party, although irregularly, but as he had not challenged that expulsion, was not eligible to stand as president of the party in line with Article 39 (1) of the party constitution, which provides that a person who is not a member of the party, shall not be elected as president of the party.
She further ruled that Nakacinda and others being persons who had been suspended had no right to convene, attend or participate in the convention as their rights as members of the MMD were on hold.
In the previous matter, Zaloumis in her capacity as MMD acting National Secretary for the Mumba led-MMD had sued Mutati, Mwansa Mbulakulima, Nakacinda and Kangwa in the Lusaka High Court, challenging the legality of the convention that was held in Kabwe that elected Mutati and others into office.
But Nakacinda and Kangwa have appealed against the whole judgement of the High Court.
In their memorandum of appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, Monday, the two advanced four grounds, arguing that the High Court erred in both law and fact when it held that Nakacinda, Kangwa and others were still expelled or suspended members of the MMD owing to the fact that the said suspensions or expulsions were never challenged by them, even when the Court made a finding that the said expulsions or suspensions were irregular.
They further argued that the Court below erred in both law and fact when it held that the 2016 convention was illegal, against the weight of the evidence in record.
Nakacinda and Kangwa further argued that the High Court erred in both law and fact when it ordered the Registrar of societies to restore the names of office bearers as they stood before the 2016 convention far and beyond what the Supreme Court in selected judgement number 31 of 2018 ordered as what ought to be determined.
The two contended that the High Court erred in both law and fact when it awarded costs to the respondent owing to the nature of the matter.
Meanwhile, Mutati on Sunday announced that he will not appeal the Court ruling because he does not want the party to remain on a fighting path all the time.
Send this to a friend