SWIFT Cargo Services Limited has sued former Katuba member of parliament Aubrey Kapalasa’s wife, Fanny Madzi, and two others seeking an order to set aside the consent judgement which gave her its motor vehicle.

In this case, Swift Cargo Services Limited has sued Madzi, the Attorney General and Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA), seeking a declaration that the execution issued by the said consent judgement was wrongful and void ab initio.

In a statement of claim filed in the Lusaka High Court on Wednesday, Swift Cargo stated that on May 27, 2020, it received an offer to purchase, from Action Auto Limited, three motor vehicles, among them an Isuzu D- Max 300 grey in colour.

Swift Cargo Services Limited stated that the vehicle later came to be registered as BAP 6744 ZM.

It stated that by offer to purchase dated June 12, 2020, Action Auto Limited offered to sell to it and signed an offer to purchase a motor vehicle more particularly described as Isuzu D-Max 300 Crew Cab LX (Auto) (TX5).

It stated that the said offer to purchase was signed by a business executive Goodward Mulubwa who is a shareholder and director in the Plainiff company.

Swift Cargo Services Limited stated that on June 25, 2020 it signed for delivery of the vehicle from Action Auto Limited and proceeded to have it registered under their company name.

It stated that the said vehicle was purchased for a total of US$44,472.02 and the same remained unpaid to Action Auto Limited.

“The plaintiff shall further aver that due to the personal relationship the said Mulubwa had with one honourable Joseph Malanji, the plaintiff lent the said motor vehicle to honourable Joseph Malanji with the intention that he would assist him in finding a buyer for the motor vehicle on behalf of the plaintiff company as the plaintiff was in the business of buying and reselling motor vehicles among other things,” it stated.

Swift Cargo Services Limited stated that after about three months of Malanji being in possession of the said motor vehicle, he failed to find a buyer and therefore, the plaintiff asked that the vehicle be returned but to no avail.

The company stated that when a representative of the plaintiff company tried to repossess the vehicle, however, it was discovered that Malanji had purportedly found a buyer and he informed the representative that he would assist the buyer regarding permits toward purchasing of the motor vehicle.

Swift Cargo Services Limited stated that it’s representative, Godfrey Njovu, was called to the police station in December 2020 to explain details of transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the first defendant but he said he was not aware of how the change of ownership had been effected.

It stated that Mulubwa lodged a complaint regarding the motor vehicle on behalf of Swift Cargo and said Kapalasa had obtained it by unknown means from Malanji.

Swift Cargo Services Limited stated that the police, through investigations, discovered that the motor vehicle was illegally changed to Madzi’s name without authorisation as she neither had any contract of sale nor did she make any payments to the plaintiff regarding purchase of the vehicle.

It stated that the vehicle was seized and Madzi commenced an action in the High Court demanding its release.

Swift Cargo argued that the consent judgement was filed without the input of the owners of the said motor vehicle.

Swift Cargo Services Limited stated that it had not finished making payments to Action Auto Limited to the said vehicle and had made an application to pay in instalments in a matter where Action Auto Limited has sued it regarding the same motor vehicle.

“The plaintiff company is shocked how Fanny is claiming a motor vehicle which she never paid for but insists it was gifted to her husband and says the only reason the vehicle was seized by the police was because her husband had a disagreement with Malanji,” stated Swift Cargo.

Swift Cargo Services Limited is now seeking an interim injunction restraining the State and its agents from releasing the motor vehicle until final determination of the matter.

It is also seeking compensation for fraud by the defendants for the change of ownership of the motor vehicle without authorisation from it.