Four Lusaka men, who have dragged President Edgar Lungu’s Special Assistant for Political Affairs Kaizer Zulu and others to the Lusaka High Court for allegedly beating and kidnapping them, have complied with the Court’s order for them to provide residential addresses.

The four have also provided their e-mails and postal addresses through an amended writ of summons.

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, 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.

But Zulu’s co-defendants had asked the Court to set aside the originating process against them for being irregular.

Chita Lodge Limited and its employee Bella Mwanza stated that the four plaintiffs had failed to disclose their physical, postal and electronic addresses in the suit and, thus, it would be difficult to trace them in case of any court order.

“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,” the defendants argued.

But the plaintiffs argued that the purported omission in endorsing their addresses on the writ of summons did not in any way affect the matter.

The four further submitted before the Court that the purported omission was not fatal and may be cured by way of an amendment.

According to an affidavit in opposition to summons for an order to set aside writ of summons for irregularity, the four plaintiffs asked the Court to dismiss the application by the defendants, stating that the said purported omission could be rectified 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.

However, the Court recently ordered for the plaintiffs to provide their residential addresses or the matter stand dismissed.

Assistant Registrar Lameck Ng’ambi ordered that the plaintiffs amend the writ of summons and warned that if they failed to adhere to the Court’s directive, the matter would stand dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.

Now, the plaintiffs have complied with the Court’s directive and provided their residential addresses.