COURT SLAMS ZAMBIA WITH HEAVY BILL IN LATE PRESIDENT LUNGU’S BURIAL BATTLE
South Africa, 23rd June, 2026 – Smart Eagles
The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa has drawn a sharp financial line through one of the most emotionally charged cross-border burial disputes in recent memory, and the message is blunt. If you lose, you pay in full.
The majority judgment, delivered by Keightley JA, did not hesitate. Once the Zambian Government’s case collapsed on both constitutional and contractual grounds, the Court moved swiftly to the financial consequence.
The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
And with that, the original High Court order was wiped out and replaced with an even clearer directive.
The application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
In legal terms, that is not just a loss. It is a premium bill.
The Zambian Government is now liable for costs in the High Court proceedings, costs of the failed appeal, and costs for two senior counsel where used, a category reserved for complex high stakes litigation.
In practical terms, this escalates what might have been a routine state litigation expense into a significantly heavier financial burden, especially given the multi stage urgency, international legal teams, and senior advocacy involved.
Although the judgment is framed in constitutional and contractual reasoning, the costs order carries its own quiet rebuke. The Court essentially found that the state failed to establish a legal right to control burial, the alleged agreement was not proven on reliable evidence, foreign law arguments were not properly supported by expert evidence, and the appeal had no sustainable prospects.
In that context, the costs order becomes more than administrative. It is a signal of judicial disapproval of how the case was built and pursued.
Even though the dispute involved a former head of state, diplomatic sensitivities, and competing national interests, the Court applied ordinary civil litigation principles. Lose the case and carry the financial consequences. No special exemption and no diplomatic discount.
Justice Norman, in dissent, would have gone the other way on both the merits and costs, arguing for each side to bear its own costs. But that view remained a minority position. The binding order followed the majority, full costs against the losing state.
In the end, the message from the bench was unmistakable. When you litigate aggressively but fail to prove your case, the Constitution protects rights, but costs enforce discipline.