Minister Malanji owes DBZ K5m, but bought chopper for $8m

Minister Malanji owes DBZ K5m, but bought chopper for $8m

Minister Malanji owes Development Bank K5.5 million Zambian Kwacha but can afford to buy a helicopter for 8 Million US Dollars? How?

FLASHBACK

The Lusaka High Court has ordered that the matter in which Development Bank of Zambia (DBZ) has sued Foreign Affairs Minister Joseph Malanji and others over a loan facility be referred to the Deputy Registrar for assessment of the sums claimed by the bank.

High Court judge Kazembe Chenda has ruled that DBZ has proven on a balance of probabilities that there is a debt and that there is default by the respondents.

He, however, added that there is no conclusive evidence on the composition of the sum claimed of K5,590,468.74, as at August 25, 2019, versus the extent of principal debt at the time that the loan became non-performing.

In this matter, DBZ sued Malanji, Royal Gibson Hotel Limited, Benson Malanji and Gibson Power System Limited as respondents for payment of all outstanding payments due from the hotel to the bank of over K5 million as at August 25, 2019, under a loan credit facility availed to the hotel and secured by a legal mortgage over stand No. 7742, and third party mortgage over plot No. 1910, Kitwe.
Malanji has been sued as Guarantor and third party mortgagor while Benson and Gibson Power Systems Limited have been sued as Guarantors.

DBZ is further seeking an enforcement of a debenture over all the hotel’s assets and appointment of a receiver, as well as delivery of vacant possession of the mortgaged properties by the Hotel and the minister to the bank.
It further wants foreclosure and sale of mortgage properties, costs and any relief the court may deem fit.
In October this year, the respondents appointed Andrew Musukwa and Co to represent them but the law firm withdrew due to conflict of interest.
The respondents having not entered an affidavit in opposition to the originating summons, judge Chenda set Tuesday as the date of judgment in the matter.

But Malanji and the other respondents asked the court to vacate the order reserving judgment.

Malanji submitted that no party will be prejudiced if the order reserving judgment in the matter was vacate

Share this post