With 6 percent interest accrued over 14 years Dr. Kaunda and UNIP will be expected to pay over K5,467,607.37 to lawyers such as Sakwiba Sikota, Patrick Nvunga and others.
This follows the dismissal of a stay of execution of a previous judgement for the amount.
According to court papers, Lusaka High Court acting registrar Chilombo Maka Phiri has dismissed an application by Dr Kaunda’s lawyers stating that there was no dispute that money was owed to the lawyers.
The Sheriff of Zambia and his bailiffs have now been asked to collect K3, 550, 394.38 from Dr Kaunda and UNIP being judgement debt and also interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from April 27 1999.
In 1998 Dr Kaunda owed and was ordered to pay US$ 171, 726 in respect of misprision of treason case, US$ 150,000 citizenship case, US$90, 475 Black Mamba case and US$45, 825 for the Kabwe assassination attempt and illegal assembly case as well as presidential petition case 25 per cent US$ 167, 500.
Judge Chilombo ruled that it was clear that Dr Kaunda accepted the judgments and became bound by it and even had an opportunity to make an application to set aside the default judgement but did not do so.
“The only logical conclusion that I can make as to why Dr Kaunda who is 1st defendant never applied to set aside the default judgement was that he had no defence on the merit. Further the court order dated 27 April 1999 did grant the defendants unconditional leave to defend in respect of 75 per cent of the claim in respect of the presidential petition of the sum of US$ 562, 500” she ruled.
The court ruled that by his own action, Dr Kaunda commenced making payments towards the judgement debt and in all affidavits filed, Dr Kaunda has not disputed the fact that he had paid K80 million.
“My considered view is that Dr Kaunda has no defence on merit and this is reason for the inordinate delay. Dr Kaunda cannot claim that the services rendered to him by the plaintiff were pro bono when he in fact made a payment of K80 million towards legal fees.” She said.
“The argument is a contradiction and this court cannot accept. Secondly, Dr Kaunda whilst admitting that the services were rendered to him by the plaintiff albeit pro bono cannot at the same time argue that he never gave instructions to the plaintiff.”
She ruled “the defendants have no arguable case and they have no defence on merit. My considered view is that this application lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed, with costs to the plaintiffs.”
Dr Kaunda was represented in the various cases by Central Chambers, Mvunga and Associates, Lukona Chambers, Shamwana and Company, Lisulo and Company, Mahachi Chambers, Light House and Dove Chambers.
The writ was issued by Messrs EBM Chambers who are the advocates for the plaintiffs.