Amb. Emmanuel mwamba writes:
PUNISH EDGAR LUNGU’S LAWYERS, DISCHARGE ORDER GIVING THEM BACK THE BODY, TWO MOUNTAINS URGES PRETORIA HIGH COURT
After the Government of the Republic of Zambia Pays and Clears the Bills For Holding President Edgar Lungu’s Remains, Two Mountains Sides With the Zambian Government on Case Coming up Tmrw, 30th April 2026
…TMBS contends that the applicants’ ex parte urgent applicant constitutes an abuse of process which warrants the grant of an order that the applicants pay TMBS’ costs on a punitive scale including the costs of counsel to be taxed on scale prays that the court order granted on 22 April 2026 be discharged insofar as TMBS is concerned…
Two Mountains Burial Services (TMBS) has filed papers in the Gauteng Province High Court in Pretoria which strongly supports Zambia’s position that the Lungu family obtained an urgent order for Lungu’s remains on a “selective version” i.e. without full disclosure.
The reconsideration bid sits tomorrow 30th April, 2026.
Fifth respondent’s affidavit-Two Mountains Submitted;
10. “It is unfortunate that the applicants approached, and was granted an order by, the above Honourable Court without making full and frank disclosure. Instead, the applicants approached court on a selective version with a number of material facts not having been disclosed.”
This includes the following:
10.1. No reference is made to the orders of the above Honourable Court granted by the Honourable Deputy Judge President on 25 June 2025 and the Honourable Acting Justice Myburgh on 2 July 2025.
Similarly, the applicants have not made any mention of the circumstances that gave rise to these orders. I do not intend to deal with these circumstances as they are set out in sufficient detail in the fourth respondent’s affidavit.
10.2. The applicants’ attorney contends that the remains of the Late President would be repatriated. This is incorrect. TMBS’ attorney advised the applicants’ attorney, both telephonically and in writing, that the remains would not be repatriated. This letter is attached as annexure “FA5(1)” to the applicants’ founding affidavit.
10.3. Whilst there is a passing reference to the SAPS’ ongoing investigation, the details of the investigation (which are in the applicants and their attorneys’ knowledge) were not disclosed to the Honourable Ms Justice Francis-Subbiah.
Instead, the applicants have sought to create the narrative that TMBS released the remains of the Late President to the SAPS without there being a legitimate basis for the SAPS’ involvement.
11. The applicants have also adopted an interpretation of the 8 August 2025 court order which is not in line with the express wording of the order.
11.1. Paragraph 16 of the founding affidavit records that the 8 August 2025 court order “authorises the release of the body with the applicants present…”. With respect, this is a concocted version.
21. It is clear from the founding affidavit that the applicants are the authors of their own misfortune.
22. If the applicants had taken the necessary steps in relation to the now lapsed appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”), they would not have found themselves in this position.
The applicants were granted an opportunity by the government’s attorney to remedy the position, which opportunity the applicants elected to ignore at the time.
23. The applicants’ attorneys were advised on three separate occasions that the appeal pending in the SCA had lapsed. This was set out in the government’s attorney’s letter dated 21 April 2026, an email from the Government’s attorney on 22 April 2026 and a letter from the government’s attorneys’ correspondent attorney (dated 21 April 2026) but dispatched on 22 April 2026.
24. The applicants were called on to lodge a condonation application together with an application to reinstate the lapsed appeal within 24 hours, failing which the government will take steps to execute the 8 August 2025 court order.
25. Instead, the applicants engaged in a thread of correspondence with the SCA and the government’s attorneys attempting to justify their position – namely that the appeal had not lapsed. This was despite the SCA’s position being communicated clearly and in no uncertain terms.
26. Accordingly, TMBS contends that the applicants’ ex parte urgent applicant constitutes an abuse of process which warrants the grant of an order that the applicants pay TMBS’ costs on a punitive scale including the costs of counsel to be taxed on scale prays that the court order granted on 22 April 2026 be discharged insofar as TMBS is concerned.
WHEREFORE the TMBS
DEPONENT