Court News

Dismiss kidnapping charges, insists Kaizer

By CHINTU MALAMBO
FORMER political Adviser to the President, Kaizer Zulu and two of his co-accused have insisted that the court should dismiss the case where three Lusaka surveyors and a driver have taken them to court for alleged assault and kidnapping.
Zulu and two others have stated that the action was a proper case that the court should dismiss.
This is in a matter where Bernard Nshindo, Sengelwayo Jere, Saul Masikoti who are qualified surveyors and businessmen, and Mason Mweemba, a driver, have sued Zulu and his acquaintances Mpange Kachingwe, Raffiq Rashid, and Bella Mwanza, a director at Chita Lodge Limited.
They are seeking among other claims damages for assault, false imprisonment and kidnapping, on the pretext that they were photographing his speed boat at Chita Lodge, in Kafue.
The four who have also cited Chita Lodge Limited in the matter are claiming that Zulu accused them of wanting to assassinate him when they allegedly captured his speed boat.
But Zulu, who argued on behalf of two others in an affidavit verifying the facts for an order to dismiss action against them, wants the court to dismiss the action against them.
Zulu stated that the plaintiffs commenced the action against them by way of writ of summons and statement of which they later amended on October 21, 2019 and served the lawyers acting for the defendants.
He stated that the defendants applied to court for an order to set-aside the originating process on the grounds that it was irregular and defective as it did not contain an electronic and physical addresses of the plaintiffs as required by the Rules of the Court.
Zulu stated that on December 4, 2019, the district registrar upon hearing the parties, ordered the plaintiffs to amend the writ of summons within seven days and serve it on them.
“That myself, the 2nd and 3rd defendants have not been served the amended writ of summons and statement of claim and therefore cannot enter any appearance or defence to the said write of summons,” Zulu stated.
Zulu stated that on April 15, 2020, he and the others carried out a search on the file and discovered that the plaintiffs had filed and applied for a default judgment against them when they never served the amended writ of summons.
He stated that the plaintiffs did not file any affidavit of service to show that the three defendants were served any amended writ of summons and statement of claim.
Zulu stated that on April 27, 2020 the three filed a notice to serve the amended writ on them within 14 days as required by law but they have failed and or neglected to serve the said amended originating process on them.
He stated that the failure by the plaintiffs to serve the amended writ of summons and statement of claim is gravely prejudicing their interest and are desirous to defend themselves in the matter but have not received the amended originating process.
“That in the premises this is a proper case that the court should dismiss the action against me, the 2nd and 3rd defendants herein,” Zulu submitted.

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker