LUSAKA High Court Judge Mwape Bowa has discharged the ex-parte order of interim injunction which was granted to 20 MMD members restraining MMD leader Nevers Mumba and others from holding the convention which saw the latter being re-elected.
On March 20, this year, Judge Bowa granted the 20 an ex-parte order of injunction restraining Mumba’s group from going ahead with the convention, which was slated for that day.
However, Mumba and the others proceeded to hold the convention.
Judge Bowa has now discharged the same.
Earlier, MMD national secretary Elizabeth Chitika asked the Court to set aside the application for an injunction for being irregular.
She stated in her affidavit verifying facts pertaining to ex-parte order of interim injunction that on March 20, 2021, MMD proceeded to hold convection for the due election of party members.
Chitika stated that on the material day, it was published on various social media accounts that the plaintiffs in this matter (Webby Chipili and 19 others) had purportedly filed an ex-parte application for an order of interim injunction and purportedly obtained an ex-parte order of injunction to prevent the convention from taking place.
She, however, stated that on the material date, neither her nor Mumba were ever personally served with a copy of the purported order of injunction or any accompanying court process, which she was informed was purportedly signed on March 20, 2021, by a High Court judge.
“Having heard rumours of the said injunction, I then instructed my advocates to write to the plaintiffs’ advocate to properly serve on them all the necessary documentation that was filed into court in this matter,” Chitika stated.
She stated that despite having written to the plaintiffs’ advocates, the said plaintiffs’ advocates still failed to serve on her and Mumba the ex-parte order of injunction, the summons and accompanying documentation which they purportedly filed at Court.
Chitika stated that on March 24, 2021, her advocates further wrote another letter to the plaintiffs’ advocates explaining to them that the ex-parte order of injunction, which was granted to the plaintiffs and necessary accompanying documents for the application had still not been served despite the reminders.
“I have been advised by my advocates herein that in light of the above, the application for the interim injunction is irregular as the requisite order and accompanying applications have not been served on the defendants or my advocates. This is a fit and proper case for this court to set aside the application for an injunction filed by the plaintiffs for being irregular,” states Chitika.