Chiluba had right to claim Tedworth Properties

Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:15:34 +0000




LATE president Frederick Chiluba had every right to claim for his properties under the Tedworth Properties Incorporated and which properties have been seized and forfeited to the State by the Anti-Corruption Commission despite his acquittal of all corruption charges against him.

Lawyers representing Dr. Chiluba have also said that the property could not be forfeited without paying compensation.

The Lawyers also accused the ACC of shifting positions over the ownership of the properties said to have been forfeited to the State in a recent case judgment under the Corrupt Practices Act before the Supreme Court of Zambia.

Tedworth Properties Incorporated being the 1st petitioner has argued that claims that the subject properties were owned by a fictitious person hiding behind a company must be immediately withdrawn.

This was in response to claims that the three petitioners, Tedworth Incorporated, Patrice Chiluba and Darlington Chiluba, had no locus standi to petition the Court on the seizure and subsequent forfeiture of properties registered under the company name.

Properties in question included Stand No. F/488a/26/C. Stand No. F/488a/26/D and Stand No. 4829 al registered under the Tedworth Properties Inc. respectively at the Ministry of Lands.

They explained that to argue that the registered owners of the properties and “personal representatives of the beneficial owner had no locus standi is frivolous and totally unreasonable”.

“If the company is a corporate sole from its shareholders, then the whole episode relating to Tedworth Properties and the seizure of its properties along with and the innuendos surrounding the case should be withdrawn by the first respondent,” the submitted.

They said it was surprising for the ACC to turn about and argue that Tedworth as a corporate was a separate entity from its individual shareholders that it could not be the owner of properties said to be owned by the company shareholders.

They argued that if it were the case, there would have been no basis for the Commission to demand for individual shareholder or owner, in this case late president Frederick Chiluba, to have personally claimed the properties and not through his company, Tedworth Properties.

“The first respondent should not be allowed to breath both hot and cold and to trivialize this matter which relates to violation of persons rights to property.

“While the whole basis for the first respondent’s seizure of the 1st petitioner’s property under the Corrupt Practices (Disposal of Recovered Property) Regulations was that the subject properties were owned by the fictitious person whose face was masked by the company (Tedworth Properties Inc) and who failed to claim the properties or to seek clearance from the 1st respondent within 3 months  timeline required under the regulation, the so called fictitious owner has in this petition laid himself bare through his persona representatives to seek enforcement of his right to property,” they said.


Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button