By GRACE CHAILE-LESOETSA
MOVEMENT for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) national sectary Elizabeth Chitika has asked the Lusaka High Court to dimiss expelled party member Raphael Nakachinda’s reply and defence because it is incompetent as it was filed in breach of Court rules.
Ms Chitika submitted that Mr Nakachinda filed his reply and defence to counter claim on December 11 this year after the commencement of the Christmas vacation without first obtaining leave to do so.
In this matter, Mr Nakachinda has sued the MMD and cited Ms Chitika in her capacity as national secretary of the party challenging his expulsion.
He is seeking a declaration that his purported expulsion from the MMD is invalid and void.
But Ms Chitika, in her defence and counter claim, alleged that Mr Nakachinda used his access to the MMD accounts and assets, to pillage and misappropriate its coffers and that he has hidden, gifted, personalised or sold its property and some motor vehicles.
She alleged that Mr Nakachinda during the time he illegally acted as MMD national secretary sold, gifted, hid or converted more than 100 MMD motor vehicles.
She has asked the Lusaka High Court to grant her 10 declarations, among them that the expulsion of Mr Nakachinda was valid and and line with the MMD constitution and that the plaintiff has no legal standing, right, authority, power or authorisation from the party to continue holding himself out as a member or national secretary.
Mr Nakachinda however, has asked the Lusaka High Court to set aside the MMD defence and counter-claim for being irregular.
In reply to Ms Chitika’s claims, Mr Nakachinda insisted that he is a loyal member of the MMD and has never been a member of the Patriotic Front though nominated as MP.
But in an affidavit in support of summons of an order to strike out Mr Nakachinda’s reply to defence and defence to counterclaim filed on December 11, 2020 without leave outside time frame permitted by pre-trial directions, Ms Chitika said he never obtained leave to file and serve the reply during the Christmas vacation.
“I am advised by my advocates that the plaintiff’s reply to defence and defence to counterclaim is incompetent and improperly before court. This is a fit and proper case for this Honourable court to grant an order striking out the plaintiff’s reply to defence and defence to counter claim,” Ms Chitika submitted.
