Alleged sellers of late President Mwanawasa’s property ask court to quash stay of execution order brought by wife

Vendors who allegedly sold late President Levy Mwanawasa’s retirement property to University of Lusaka Limited have objected to former First Lady, Maureen Mwanawasa’s application to halt proceedings in matter she is sued for allegedly preventing vacant possession of the Presidential retirement house.

In this matter, Esther Chipasi and Ghanaian, Mustapha Kwabena Osuman, petitioned the Lusaka High Court, seeking an order that the paramilitary personal deployed on the property be removed so vacant possession can be executed and property handed over to Lusaka University Limited (UNILUS).

They are seeking a declaration that the Attorney-General’s action to deploy military personnel on the property in order to prevent UNILUS from enjoying quiet possession of the property was a violation of their right to protection from deprivation of property on the part of UNILUS and also affected the petitioners.

They also want a declaration that Maureen Kakubo Mwanawasa, no longer has both beneficial and legal interest in property and, therefore, the caveat that was placed by the Attorney General has no legal backing.

Maureen, who doubles as co-executor of her husband’s estate, however, filed an application to stop the proceedings of the matter until the petitioners pay costs awarded to her in a case discontinued before the Lusaka Magistrate Court under cause no.2023/CRMP/MISX/176 on March 22,2023.

She contended that the duo had commenced an action in the Lusaka Magistrate Court demanding vacant possession of the property no.L/2480/M chongwe, but discontinued the matter.

She alleged the petitioners had refused to pay the K25,000 costs demanded and the matter was proceeding to taxation.

Chipasi and Osuman, on Wednesday, filed an affidavit in opposition, stating the respondent’s application was not tenable at law as the High Court was mandated to hear and determine a petition once the same presented before it .

They submitted that an application for stay did not operate in a vaccum, hence the same was premature before court.

“That the second respondent ought to have first commenced proceedings for taxation by filing a bill of costs before rushing to make this application. Further, the second respondent has not demonstrated that we are incapable of paying costs once taxes. That we are aware that costs in the subordinate court are way minimal, especially for a matter that only had one chamber hearing,” they argued.

The petitioners also argued that the former first lady had not demonstrated how they would likely suffer irreparable ruin or damage, if the application was not granted.

They, therefore, asked the court to dismiss the application because the applicant would not be prejudiced in any way.

WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.