BUSINESSMAN Samuel Mulozi has come to the aid of ‘billionaire’ journalist Faith Musonda, claiming ownership of her land in Ibex Hill, property no. F378a/11, which he wants to redeem from the ACC, on reasons that it is wrongly a subject of litigation.

Mulozi has submitted before the Economic and Financial Crimes Court that Musonda’s Television station Life TV sits on property no. F/378a/11/F which is a subdivision of his property F378a/11 that the Commission has earmarked for forfeiture.

In this matter the Anti-graft body wants the Court to forfeit Musonda’s house in Kingsland City a farm in Chisamba, business premises, Money in her Bank accounts and farm machinery on reasons that they were illegally acquired.

The ACC has cited Faith Musonda and her companies Sela Property Investments Limited, Convenant Broadcasting Company ,Life Television limited as interested parties in the matter.

The properties that have been seized and earmarked for forfeiture are ; Plot no. LUSAK/LN_24982/3 in Kingsland City, plot no. F/1504/A in Chisamba, plot no. F/378a/11 in Ibex Hill, Bank of Zambia Government bonds issue no.01/2021/BA, Treasury bills issue no.11/2021TBs, Madison Finance Fixed term deposits unit no. 1140446 and assorted jewels.

Others are a Tafe tractor 7515 75HP-unregistered, plough disc BD mounted AF3, Harrow Disc BD GHO-R mounted 16, planter BD PLB-4 mounted row, sprayer Boom Jacto(M) condor M12, Trailer 5TN steel deck and a Toyota Allion registration no.72M.

However Mulozi has found an affidavit opposing an affidavit in support of originating notice of motion, claiming ownership of the land that encompasses the TV station.

He explained that the property knowns as F/378a/11 is the entire extent of the land and not a subdivision belonging to the journalist.

Mulozi said his lawyers wrote to the ACC informing it about the correct status of the property but no action has been taken to rectify the said error.

“Musonda’s subdivision was already marked off and has an independent survey diagram which describes the actual subdivision that was acquired and the same is known as subdivision F of subdivision 11 of Farm 378a Ibex Hill, and should reflect as F/378a/11/F and not F/378a/11,” he stated.

“I applied for other subdivisions to be created on my land and the same was denied by the Commissioner of lands for the reason that there was a restriction notice placed on the land.”

Mulozi said he has not been able to deal with his land as he wishes and the same has caused him great inconvenience.

“The applicants actions and error ought to be corrected to avoid me facing any further inconvenience when dealing with my land,” he said.

“The Commissioner of lands guided that the restriction notice can be placed directly on the actual subdivision F of Farm 378a/11 belonging to Musonda and not on the entire portion of land. I risk my entire portion of land being forfeited to the state if the said process is left as it is, as the property number listed as F/378a/11 and that it belongs to the first Musonda is incorrect as that is my property.”

He said the property being referred to as subdivision no.F/378a/11 has his house and the land is in extent of 3 hectares more or less and that the subdivision where Life TV is situated is known as subdivision F of property no.F/378a/11 and measures only 2441 square meters or 0.60 acres.

“The applicant(ACC) is supposed to refer to the subdivision that was acquired by the interested party from Samuel Mulozi which is known as F/378a/11/F. We respectfully urge this court to hold that the said property known as F/378a/11 should not be a subject of this litigation as it mistakenly mentioned,”said Mulozi.



  1. The Registrar of Lands Deeds and Not the Commisioner of lamds is the appropriate office that you application should have been sent to.
    Secondly, it should be noted that a number of properties on that farm are subject to similar matters that Ms Musonda faces. Yes, you have a point with the manner the restricton was placed, but Ms Musonda’s property is still on the parent title and marking off in the Survey department doesnt imply that the property is legally a separate sub division. The legal aspect (from the article) was never completed. An SOT or assignment was never done, as such it is still part of the parent title and other persons subject to investigation maybe in a similar position(in the interst of Justice) the state is right. So the state is on the right footing in placing their restriction.
    In this age of money laundering, its worthy to be cautious of the entities that we engage in business with. In the same manner dual diligence is carried on by the buyer on the land being sold. It would be prudent that would be sellers begin to do due diligence on the “would be” buyers, to avoid being caught up in issues like this.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here