By Mwaka Ndawa
KAMWALA Ward councilor Mainda Simata says PF acting vice-president Given Lubinda used his influence as Kabwata member of parliament and as a minister to illegally acquire land where his charity foundation is erected.
Simata said the property belonged to the community and Lubinda deprived the members of its communal use.
This is in a matter where Given Lubinda Foundation Limited has sued Simata for threatening to evict it from Stand Number 14726/917/REM in Kamwala South on reasons that the land was illegally acquired.
The Foundation is seeking an order of the Lusaka High Court, restraining Simata from interfering with its peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the land.
Given Lubinda Foundation wants an order of injunction prohibiting Simata from interfering with the land in question.
It also wants damages for inconvenience, punitive and exemplary damages and interest.
In an affidavit in opposition to ex-parte summons for an order of interlocutory injunction, Simata said the Foundation had not shown how he had interfered with its peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the land, but it had instead copied clause 3 of the lease agreement between itself and the Lusaka City Council.
“The defendant does not deny appearing on various media platforms and still maintains that the plaintiff has illegally occupied the land in question,” Simata said. “The defendant in his position as councillor for Kamwala Ward was speaking on behalf of the people that have lodged a complaint that Hon. Lubinda used his influence as area member of parliament and minister to illegally acquire this property that belonged to the community, depriving them of its communal use, but instead is in private hands through Given Lubinda Foundation Limited, a thing which has now angered the community who want the property restored for communal use.”
He said it was not true that the Foundation would suffer irreparable damages because it supported the under privileged through projects, scholarships, campaign for children and women’s rights, skills training and development.
“The reason the plaintiff should not be granted this relief is that the plaintiff has not complied with the rules of the court which require that a letter of demand is served on the defendant,” said Simata.
‘’The plaintiff has failed in its affidavit to demonstrate or provide any tangible evidence to show any misconduct by the defendant that would warrant the maintenance of the status quo of the plaintiff. Further, there is no evidence by the plaintiff to show any irreparable damages that the plaintiff has suffered.”
He prayed that the application by the Foundation be dismissed with costs.