Court Of Appeal Confirms Ownership Of Zambezi Portland Cement In The Final Judgement

The Court of Appeal announced its final decision on Zambezi Portland Cement. According to this decision, Dr. Rajan Mahtani is the real owner of the Zambezi Portland Cement factory. Finsbury Investments, which is owned by Dr. Rajan Mahtani, holds 58 percent shares at the factory. On the other hand, Ventriglias owned Ital Terrazzo Limited holds 42 percent shares at the factory and are only minority shareholder. As such, the Court of Appeal effectively reversed the judgement by the Lusaka High Court. While giving this decision, justice Mwinde from the Court of Appeal also said that the judge below him was wrong in declaring Ventriglias as the only shareholders of the Zambezi Portland Cement factory. The judge at the Lusaka High Court had announced that Ventriglias were only shareholders of the cement factory and this decision was heavily condemned.

Zambezi Portland Cement

New details were also revealed during the decision making process at the Court of Appeal. The final judgement took more than 90 minutes during the morning hours of 31st January 2019 and during this proceeding, several new details were shared. Finsbury Investments have paid a sum of K580,000,00 which is pre-rebased and with interest to the High Court of Zambia. This payment was made under the Commercial Registration cause and was signed on 6th February 2019, in compliance with the judgement from the Court.

At the same time, Finsbury Investments have also claimed a sum of K1 billion with interest against the payment made for Zambezi Portland Cement on 27th July 2005. This payment was made against the entire share capital issued in the name of Finsbury Investment. This payment was further confirmed by the Court of Appeal with share transfer documents for December 2006 & January 2007. These share transfers further confirm the ownership of Finsbury Investments which is 58 percent of the Zambezi Portland Cement and majority shareholding.

Furthermore, reports & publications which contrasted the judgement given by the Court of Appeal were found to be inconsistent and fake.