The four Lusaka men who have sued Special assistant to the President for Political affairs Kaizer Zulu and others for allegedly kidnapping and assaulting them, have submitted that the purported omission in endorsing their addresses on the writ of summons does not in any way affect the matter.
The four have further submitted to the Lusaka High Court that the purported omission is not fatal and may be cured by way of an amendment.
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 plaintiffs, who are seeking damages for assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, among other claims, stated in their statement of claim that Zulu in particular, fired several shots in the air while continuously assaulting them with his pistol and also pointing it to their heads with threats of killing them.
Previously, the defendants asked the court to set aside the originating process against them for being irregular.
Chita Lodge Limited and its employee, Mwanza, stated that the four plaintiffs had failed to disclose their physical, postal and electronic address in the suit and thus it would be difficult to trace them in case of any court order.
“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.
But according to an affidavit in opposition to summons for an order to set aside writ of summons for irregularity, the four plaintiffs have asked the court to dismiss the application by the defendants, stating that the said purported omission could be rectified by way of an amendment.
The plaintiffs stated through their lawyer Machayi Kasaji that the purported omission in endorsing their addresses on the writ of summons was not fatal but curable by way of an amendment.
“That the purported omission is regulatory, therefore, may be cured through an order of the court. That the purported omission or otherwise does not in any way affect the substantive matter,” the affidavit read.
Kasaji stated that the plaintiffs advocates’ physical and electronic addresses were endorsed on the writ through which all communications were to be made.
He added that no prejudice had been or would be occasioned to the defendants if the said purported omission was rectified by way of an amendment.
“In fact all the defendants have received originating process through their respective advocates. We beseech this court’s indulgence to dismiss this application as the said purported omission can be rectified by way of an amendment,” read the affidavit.
And the plaintiffs submitted that the Supreme Court of Zambia had in numerous cases emphasized the desirability of having matters concluded and determined on the merits rather than on technicalities.