THE Lusaka High Court has thrown out an application by Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited in which it asked the court to dismiss the winding-up petition against Konkola Copper Mines (KCM).

Lusaka High Court judge Mwaka Mikalile said the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Vedanta’s application filed on September 20, 2021 by virtue of the fact that the arbitration was yet to be concluded.

She added that the stay of the winding-up proceedings remained operative as ordered by the Court of Appeal.

On November 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal ordered the stay of the winding-up proceedings which ZCCM-IH instituted against KCM and referred the matter to arbitration as requested by Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited.

This is a matter in which ZCCM-IH petitioned the Lusaka High Court, seeking an order that KCM should be wound up for engaging in tax evasion and being managed in a manner detrimental to its interest, among other allegations.

But in September last year, Vedanta Resources Limited applied to have the KCM liquidation case dismissed on account of the partial final award that was subsequently rendered.

According to summons for an order to strike out and or dismiss the petition, Vedanta director and company secretary Deepak Kumar stated that according to the partial final arbitral award, ZCCM-IH breached and is in continued breach of the dispute resolution provisions of clause 24 and 26 of the Shareholders Agreement.

In her ruling delivered, recently, judge Mikalile said it was common cause that the proceedings in the matter were stayed.

She stated that the Court of Appeal in its decision dated November 20, 2020 ordered the stay of the winding-up proceedings and referred the matter to arbitration.

Judge Mikalile noted that following the referral of the matter to arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered a partial final award and that it was on the strength of that award that Vedanta made an application for an order to strike out or dismiss the petition.

She stated that by virtue of the fact that the arbitration was yet to be concluded, she was inclined to agree with the respondent that her court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine Vedanta’s application to dismiss the petition.

“Having established that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain Vedanta’s application filed on 20th September, 2021, I am of the considered view that it is otiose to delve into the remaining issues contained in the petitioner’s motion. In the circumstances, I do hereby dismiss the contributor’s application for being incompetently before court with costs to be taxed in default of agreement. The stay remains operative as ordered by the Court of Appeal,” ruled judge Mikalile.