Tasila likely to lose Sinda farm to the State
CHAWAMA constituency member of parliament Tasila Lungu is likely to lose her Sinda farm to the State as judgement has been set for next month by the Economic and Financial Crimes Court after she failed to defend her property.
In this case, the State wants to grab Tasila’s farm no. F/2278 in Sinda district which has fish ponds constructed at K13, 950, 378.83 which is said to be way beyond her income.
The Court had set hearing for the case on February 14, 2024 but Tasila filed an affidavit in opposition to the forfeiture weeks after hearing claiming she did not engage in crime to acquire the property.
Tasila claimed that she was not aware that the Court had already set hearing for the main matter, as her lawyers were not notified about the hearing date a month before.
The expecting Tasila said she was unwell and unable to give her lawyers instructions to go and get pictures of the farm in Sinda so that they can adequately prepare to oppose Emmanuel Khondowe’s findings.
Tasila charged that the request by the DPP to have her Sinda farm confiscated is evil-intentioned just because her father lost superior authority after having been rejected by 2.8 million Zambians in the August 12, 2021 poll.
Lungu’s most prominent baby argued that the price of her farm no. F/2278 in Sinda district of Eastern province is K300,000 and not the inflated price of K13, 950, 378.83.
The law maker further raised preliminary issue seeking determination on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has the legal capacity to sue and be sued.
She wanted the Court to ascertain whether public prosecutors can represent the Director of Public Prosecution who is legally nonexistent among other issues.
During hearing before Judges Susan Wanjelani, Pixie Yangailo and Vincent Siloka, Tasila’s lawyer Nkhula Botha argued that the Court had no authority to hear the matter as the DPP Gilbert Phiri has no legal capacity to sue and be sued.
Botha said since the DPP was non existent State advocates from the National Prosecutions Authority,(NPA) cannot
represent such a person.
He also argued that the case was wrongly commenced under Order 30 Rule 15 and 17 of the High Court Rules.
Botha said DEC should have anchored its application on clear provisions that allowed
it to institute matters by way of Originating Notice of Motion and not just loosely picking on the words “motion”.
He added that the process was bad and had no legs to stand on.
In reply State advocate Margaret Chitundu argued that by virtue of Article 180(😎 of the Constitution the DPP can delegate his functions to a legal practitioner or public prosecutor.
She said the matter was correctly before before Court.
Chitundu added that the originating notice of motion was not bad at law as the defects which were identified can be corrected.
Botha reiterated that Article 180 of the Constitution creates a portfolio of the DPP but it does not create or give him legal capacity to sue and be sued.
Ruling on the application judge Wanjelani said the matter was properly commenced bythe DPP.
She said Botha misdirected himself by trying to divorce the function of the DPP from the National Prosecution Authority.
“In conclusion we find that all the preliminary issues raised are bereft of any merit and are dismissed,” ordered judge Wanjelani.
“Consequently, and following our directive at the last hearing that if we dismiss the
preliminary issue, we shall proceed to render Judgment based on the record before us as the substantive matter is unopposed.”
The Court set April 19, 2024 for judgement and condemned Tasila to costs, which will be taxed in default of agreement…
By Mwaka Ndawa
Kalemba