NDC leader Chishimba Kambwili has insisted that businessman Harry Valden Findlay willfully failed to comply with the Lusaka High Court’s orders for directions which were issued on the same day as the ruling which confirmed an order of injunction earlier granted to the latter.
This is a matter in which Findlay has sued Kambwili for accusing him of being a drug dealer and using the Presidential jet to traffic drugs.
Findlay who is seeking among other claims, damages for libel and slander, lamented that his reputation and character as a renowned businessman has been damaged as he has been labeled a drug dealer and trafficker.
In December last year, the Lusaka High Court confirmed an order of injunction earlier granted to Findlay, restraining Kambwili from defaming him through drug dealing accusations.
But Kambwili asked the court to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution, on account of Findlay’s non-compliance with the court’s orders for directions.
According to an affidavit in support of summons to dismiss Findlay’s action for want of prosecution, Precious Mukwemba of Messrs C L Mundia and Company, explained that orders for directions in the matter were issued on the same day as the ruling which confirmed an order of injunction earlier granted to Findlay.
She stated that Findlay had failed to comply with the said orders for directions.
Mukwemba stated that this was after they conducted a search and found that to date Findlay had not filed in his bundles of documents and pleadings.
However, Findlay argued that he was still extremely desirous of prosecuting the matter.
According to an affidavit in opposition to Kambwili’s affidavit in support of summons to dismiss the action, Findlay through his lawyer Elijah Kaluba stated that his unfortunate non-compliance of the said orders for directions was not meant to disobey the court in any way.
Kaluba stated that the said non-compliance was caused due to the parties being on industrial break at the requisite time the list of documents, bundles of pleadings and documents were supposed to be filed.
He stated that Kambwili would not be prejudiced in any way if the court dismissed his application but conversely the best interest of the parties shall be served as the matter will be determined on its merits.
But, in an affidavit in opposition filed, April 9, Kambwili argued that Findlay was well aware of the orders for directions before going on industrial break as the same were issued on the same day as the ruling confirming his injunction.
Kambwili further stated that Findlay also failed to serve the same on him in good time knowing very well of the industrial break.
He added that the orders for directions were only served on him on January 10, 2020 when the dates had passed preventing him from complying with the same.
Kambwili argued that Findlay’s advocate was not on industrial break on the date of filing bundles of documents and pleadings as they sent a letter to him with regards to costs for the the injunction application a day before the same were to be filed.
“On the premise the plaintiff should have atleast complied with Order one and two of the Order for directions . This was however, not done. The plaintiff therefore wilfully failed to comply with the Order for directions,” stated Kambwili.