By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA
CONTEMPT of court proceedings against Chishimba Kambwili and three others in the Ndola High Court pending determination of an appeal have been stayed.
Court of Appeal Judge Catherine Makungu has granted an application to stay the matter.
Mr Kambwili, the former National Democratic Congress (NDC) president who is back in the Patriotic Front (PF), Saboi Imboela, Dr Paul Mbulo and Ackson Kaonga have appealed in the Court of Appeal against the subordinate court’s order granting the opposite faction of secretary General Bridget Atanga to commence contempt proceedings against them despite the order of stay still subsisting.
In March 3, last year, Ms Atanga sued Mr Kambwili in the Lusaka High Court seeking an injunction restraining him from masquerading as party president.
However, On March 23, 2021, Ms Atanga began a parallel matter in the Ndola High Court seeking similar reliefs and Judge Mary Mulanda granted her the injunction.
Ms Atanga then discontinued the matter in the Lusaka High Court and was condemned to pay costs. When Judge Mulanda learned of the matter commenced in Lusaka, she ordered for a stay of proceedings in the case before her pending payment of costs.
Ms Imboela submitted that despite Judge Mulanda having stayed the proceedings, she granted the respondent an exparte order for leave to commence committal proceedings on April 16, 2021 against the quartet.
Dissatisfied with the order, the four appealed to the Court of Appeal on July 13, 2021 and contended that proceedings be stayed in the Ndola High Court until Ms Atanga settles the costs in the discontinued case.
They argued that if the stay is not granted, the appeal would be rendered academic.
Ms Atanga argued that the application for stay of committal proceedings was incompetently before the Court of Appeal as the correct forum should have been the subordinate court.
But Ms Justice Makungu in her ruling found the application to be properly before her as the four had initially filed the application for a stay in the subordinate court and was rejected.
“The appellants have shown that the order granting leave to commence committal proceedings is a subject of an appeal that is yet to be heard. In my considered view, the balance of convenience tilts towards granting the stay of proceedings to avoid the outcome of the appeal being rendered academic. I thus find the application meritorious and accordingly confirm the stay of committal proceedings and other proceedings that was earlier granted pending the determination of the appeal,” she ruled.
