Chiteka Kapepula v Malama Mushinga and Ors (2024/HP/0028) [2025] ZMHC 114 (9 December 2025)

I IN THE moH COURT or ZAMBIA AT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (C111,I ,Jun,d,rt,nn) BETWEEN: CHITEKE K. APEPULA AND MALAMA MUSHrNGA MASITALA NANYANGWE CHILAO NYIRONGO MWINDE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (!>ucd m, a firm l 2024/HP/0028 I • PLAINTIFF l •• DEFENDANT 2n DEFENDANT 3 ,4 DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 4TH DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Justice S. Chocho, on December 9"', 2025 la chamben. Fnr the Ploin11ff- Mr. D. M. Bwalya - Messrs Bwalya Sampa Legal Practirioners. For rhe J s 1 & 2nd Defendants: Ms. M. Mbu/o and Ms. C. C>use,1galumbwe of For rhc 3rd Defendant: For the 1th Defc:,1dQJll: Mesdames Mbulo and Par1ncrs No Appearance Mr. L. Kalinde (Slalc Advocate) Allomey General's Chambers JUDGMENT Cases re e"ed to: 1. Sithole vs The State Lotteries Board (1975) ZR 106. 2. Charles Kajimanga vs Mannetu Chilemya (2016} ZR 189. 3. Elias Tembo vs Maureen Chlrwa and Others Appeal No. 5 of 2018. J2 4 . liilct WQs lti Qlt IVgos i (Suing a s Administrator 0 / t e h estate of the late "9Sfon Ngos i.) v s The Attorney Genera an d Another SCZ Juctgme nt •• ••O. 18 Of 2 01 5 . S . Anti. corruption Commission vs Barnet Developmen . L . t Corporation •mttect (2008) Z . R . 69. 7 . Nkongolo Farm Limited v Zambia National Commercial Bank Limitect & Otlters, SCZ Appeal No. 101 of 2004. · . Rosemary Phin Mazada v Award Karen Coleen (2008) ZR 129· · Sailas Ngowani and Othe r s II Flamingo Fann Limited Appeal No. 90 of 2016. 9. Sydney Choonga v Yona Daka and Muleza Mwiimbu and Company Appeal No. 209 of 202 4 . l 0 . Abenas United Limited v J . C Malunga and Company Appeal No. 150 of 2017. 11. Robert Owen Harri s II Mopani Copper Mine PLC Appeal No. 167 of 2013. 12. Chitengi v Attorney General 2017/ HP/ 1552. l3 . Shell and BP Zambia Limited II Conidaris and Others {1974) ZR 281 . J3 l . Section 33 of the Lands and Deeds Regi5try Act 3 · Section. 34 of t he Lands and Deeds Registry Act · Land Law (Nutshells), 1994, Third Edition, London: Sweet a nd Maxwell. · Section. 59 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act, Chapter 185 of the Laws of Zambia. S. Halsbury's Laws of England Volume 38 in paragraph 1205 at page 738. 1 . INTRODUCTION 1 . 1. This This Judgment is in respect of the Plaintifrs action agai n st the J • and 2nc Defendants commenced by way of Writ of Summons and Statem ent of Claim d a ted J a nuary 12 1h, 2024 . By an Order d ated May 29''"· , 2024 , th e 3 rd and 4 th Defe ndants were added t o the proceedings and the Pla int iff s u bsequently amended its S ta te men t of Claim on July 3 J ,. , 2024 . The Plaintiff claimed t he following; I J An o rder that the purported Deed of Assignment regi s tered by he 1,. and 2 nr1 Defend ants and rela t ing to the remaining e xte nt of Lot n o. 1 1306/ M , si tuate a t New Kasama, Lusaka be declared null and void · J4 n order for the canccllal1on of Certificate or Title Deed obtained fraudulently in the name or the I ~1 and 2 n,1 Der cnd::i nts and rrlAung to remaining extent or Lot No. I 1306/ 1 situate at New l(asama. Lusaka; iii) n order that remaining extent of Lot No . 11306/M situate at cw Kasama, Lusaka be reverted to th e Chiteka Kapepula; iv) An order that the 1,1 and 2 nd Defendants surrender or yield 1mmcd1atc possession of remaining extent of Lot o. 11306/ M situate at New Kasama, Lusaka in the City and Province of Lusaka; \') An order for the demolition of all structures and improrcments put up by the l r.i and 2nd Defendants on the remaining extent or Lot ~o. 11306/ M situate at New Kasa.ma in the City and Province or Lusaka: \'i) An order of Interim lnJuncuon restraining the 1 ' ' and 2 n<l Ddendnnts either by thrmsrl\!cs their scrYant~ or agrnts or otherwise whosoever from remai ning or continuing in occupat1on , 1rcspns. ing, dnlhng, bu1ldml-(. 01 workrng upon remaining c:\.tcn t ot Lot ·o 1 130b 1 ~1 s1tuatr d t ~l'\\" l\asnma in the C11, and Pro, 111< r of l.11._,,k,1, , iii l),1m;1ge:-. rur 1rcsp,1." w l,rnrl . JS viii) D amages fo r inconvenience, stress, m ental torture and a n guish ; ix) In ter est 011 a ll s ums due; x) Costs; a nd xi) Any o the r r elie f the court m ay deem fit. 1.2. The 15 1 a nd 2 nd Defendants e ntered Appearan ce a nd filed a D efen ce on J a nuru·y 25th, 202 4, 1,vhic h was am ended on August 20Lh, 2 024 in which the a lleged n egligen ce o n the part of the 3 rd and 4 1h Defendants and Counter-Claimed the following: i} A d eclaratio n tha t the 1st a nd 2 n d Defendant w e re bonafide purch aser s fo r value without nolice for the remaining extent o f property No. L/ 11306/ M ; ii) A declaration and a n order that the Certificate o f Title CT 1750 /9 -2023 th e remaining extent of p rope rty No. L/ I 1306/ M iss u e by the 4 1h De fend ant in the name o f the l s t a n 2n◄ 1 Defendant is va lid and was not obtained b:v fra ud o n the part of the 1 ~, a nd 2 nd Defend a n ts; iii) An order that t h e 31'(1 a nd 4,1, Defenda nt compe n sate the Pla intiff fo r the loss or the re m ain in g extent of Stan d No. L/ 11 306/ M ; J6 iv) In the alternative the 1 "'' and 2nd Defendant be reimbursed the full purchase price by the 3 rd and 4 1h Defend a nts; v) Damages for inconvenience; vi) Damages for n egligence; vii) Damages for stress a nd menta l anguish : viii) Cost : a nd ix) Any other relief the Court may deem fit . l .3 . By and Order d a ted May 291h , 2024 the 3 rd a n d 4 1h Defenda nts were joined to the proceedings. l .4. The 3rr1 Defendant entered a ppearance a n d filed a Defence on Septe mbe r 16th, 2024 . 1 .5. the 4th De fenda nt ente red appea rance a nd filed a Defence a n Defence to th e 1s t and 2 nd Defendant's Counte r Claim on November J 4 lh, 2024 in whic h the 4 ,h De fendant denied negligence on the part o f th~ Registrar. l .6 . The Plaintiff joined issu e w ith the Defendan t 's defenc e and filed a reply on January 30 t h , 20 24. 2. EVIDENCE/ TESTIMONY J7 2. 1 • Trial was sch edule d a nd heard on March 3 1st, 2025 and April 3 rd , 2 0 25. 2.2. The Pla intiff called 6 witnesses in aid of h is case. PW l w as o n e C hiteka Kape pula who is the Plaintiff herein. 2.3. PW 1 test ified in chief that somet im e in Octobe r 2023, th e Plaintiff received a p h one call from one of the neighb ours who wanted to know if the p lai ntiff ha d sold the r emaining extent of Lot 1 1306/ M New Kasarna, Lusaka (hereinafter re fe rred to as the Subjec t Property) . 2 .4. PW 1 testified that the extent of the land is 1.6968 h ectares, which the Plaintiff h as n ot sold. 2 .5 . PW 1 Le !il i fi ed t h at following t h e phone call , the P laintiff a n d h i s dau g hter, o n e Chiscla Kapcpula Simachcbelc visited th e Subje c t Pr ope rty a n d foun d b eacons pla ced . 2 .6. PW l fu r the r te s t ifi e d that h e disc overed that t he l s t a nd 2nd Defendants c l a im ed to have b o Ltg h t th e propcr t~· from a Mr. Chi c te k<' Kapepula . JS 2 . 7 . PW I testified t h a t the Pla intiff h as n eve r sold the Subject Pro perty the l "1 a n d 2 nd De fe n dan ts a nd th e Plai n tiff s till remain s t h e lcgaJ a n d r igh t fu I owner of the su bjecl properly . 2 .8. P\V 1 t estified that h e together with hi s daug h ter w ent t o Ministry of Lands where it was discovered that the owners hip was c h anged from the Plaintiff to th e 1, 1 a nd 2nd De fend a nts and C e rtificate of Ti tle No. CT 1750/9 -2023 was issued in favour of the 1, 1 and 2 nd De fe nda nts. 2.9. PWl testified t h at he n ever s igned any conveyancing d ocuments in fa,·our of the l ~• and 2 nd Defe ndants and th a t the alleged Chiteka Ka p c pula is not th e sam e a s th<: Pla intiff h e rein but a fra uds ter. 2 . 10. PW 1 testified t h at h e is s till in po ssessio n of the original Certificate of Title No. 2 41 74 for Subject Proper ty . 2 . l 1. PW 1 testified t h at t he Ministry of Lands Register indicates that th e Deed of Assignm e n t to c h a n ge owner ship was lodged on Septe mbe r I S L, 2 023. 2.1 2 . P\V I f urth e r tc~li fi cd thm Lh <.! Pl ai n l1 ff a nd his daughter r e p o rted t h e mt:itter to VJrJOd la ncJ s Police Stati o n wh o sum m oned th P J , • n n d 2n ! De fe ndant s . J9 2 . 13 . P\V 1 testifi ed t h a t th · 1 s l Defendant met him for th e first lime a l W oodl ands Po lic e S t a tion a nd confirmed that the Subject Proper ty w as b o u g ht from a diffe rent Chiteka Kapepula. 2. 14. P\V 1 te stifie d that he had Lot No. 1 1306/ M Lusaka subdivided into subdivision A, 8, C, D , E whic h were sold to various persons and tha t after subdividing, the Plaintiff remained with the Subjec t Property. 2 . 1 5 . PW 1 testifi ed th a t h is National Registration Card (NRC) is different fro m th e one the purported Chite ka Kapepula used , in the purport ed conveyance of the subject property to the 1 s1 and 2 nd D e fe nda nts. 2 . 16 . P\V l te stified under c ross exa mina tion that he attempted to file a ca veat b u t it w a s refused. 2. l 7 . P\,V l t estifie d und e r cros s e xamination that the d e tails on th e two ~ f~ C's arc not t he sa m e. 2.18. P \V l tes t ified u nder e xamina t ion th a t he h a s n e \·er o b tain e d a du p lica te Certificate or Title. 2 . 19 . P W I t stificd under cross exammat ion 1ha c th e rt:aso n he is saying t he 1-.• nnd 2 ,., Ddend3nts arc· not owner s is been u se of th e c han ge of m, n~rsh ip was noL genume 2 20 The rt \ \ ;J.., no r e cx:i m i11a11,,n J l O 2 .21 . P\V2 wn s nnc Phtllt:mon K<.1nu.h c:ya, who filed a wilncsn st:.1tc;ment dat e d Apnl 2 11 • • 20224 :1nd l c:Hi ficd in c hief that th e Pla intiff i~. rhc legal c1nd re gistered owner of th e subJcc l pro pe rly. 2.22. PW2 t e stified t hat the Pl:11ntiff s ubdivided portion s nam<:ly A,B,C ,D and E of Lot ro. 1 I 306 / M which h e sold but the S ubject Property has not bt>cn sold . 2.23. PW2 testified under cross examination that h e purchased the properly in th e yea r 2 014 . 2.24 . PW2 testified unde r c ross e xamination that h e m et the Plaintiff when h e purc h ased the property. 2.25. The re was n o r e-examination. 2. 26. P\A/3 was one Alex Samawaya who filed a witness Statement dated April 2n d. 2 024 and testified in c hief that th Plnintiff sold subdivision □ of Lot o . 11306 / M, Lu saka at 1<240,000.00 by Con t rac L of Suk d ~sl e d f'c br u:iry J.8 1 " , 2 014 . 2 27. PW3 test ified th a t the Plamtifrs la nd rcmarn cd as the remaining exten t of Lot l 1~3 U(,f ~1. h :1-. nnt bt •f·n sold LO :1mone. Jll ~untuT ,s the leg. I and nghtful owner oi the t ht' tu1,~ h P:ainn J"s T'it:e Deed . Uld u "~ls cc..: nfirmed that he was the owner. ne :'\sungo ~tpe.::eni Je~ "he..: filed a ";c,ess statement da:~'<5 Ap:-i! .:~d . .: 2-! .me testified in chief that tht"' Plaintiff s ld D .• 'tnd J 12 2 .37. PWS was one Ra phca l Thole who filed a witness statement d ated April 2 nd , 2024 a nd testified in chief that sometime in 2014, the Plaintiff engaged him to look for purchasers of Subdivision A, B, C, D and E of Lot No. 11306/M, New Kasama, Lusaka . 2 .38. PWS te stified t h at the Plaintiff is the legal and rightful owner of th e Subject Prope r ty. 2 .39. PWS testified under cross examination that it is not possible that the Plaintiff could be a fra udster. 2.40 . PWS testified under cross examination that the purchaser met the Plaintiff when buying the land. 2 .41 . PW5 testified that under cross examination that he had the title Certificate of Title at aJI t imes and at no point did he lose or apply for a duplicate Certificate of Title. 2.42. There was n o r e -examinati on of PWS. 2 43 . PW6 w as o n e C hisa la l<apcpu la im achcb le who filed a witn ess s ta tement date d April 2nt! , 2024 and testified in c hie f that the Plaintiff is Lhc legal and rig hLfu l own e r of lhc subject pro p e rty. 2 .44 . P\V6 te s tiri c-d tha t t he Pl:1i nt iff hns not sold th <' Subject Pt·op c rty. J13 2.45. PW6 testified lhat the together with the Plaintiff, they received information that there were people placing beac ons on the Subject Property and when the same was co nfirmed, they reported the mauc r to Woodlands Police Station . 2 .46. PW6 testified that lhe 1111 Defendant admitted that h e saw the Plaintiff for the first time. 2 .4 7. PW6 furthe r testified that at the police station, the 1111 Defendant alleged to have purchased the Subject Property from a different Chitek c Kapepula. 2 .48. PW6 testified that the Plaintiff has never sold the Subject Property a nd m et the 1 !ot Defendant for the 1 •u time at Woodlands Police S ta ti on. 2 .49. P\1/6 tes tified under cross examination that the l s t and 2nt1 Defendant arc n ot the o wne r of the property. 2. 50. PW6 1 est i fted under cross exa mination that th e 1st and 2nd Defen dan ts have not put u p any struc ture on the prope rty . 2. 5 J. There \\·as nolhmg in re-e xa mination . 2 .52. Th e Dc-fcnd ;int s c:1 lled Lhrec \\'itncssc s 111 aid or thei r cnsc. D\V I ,,·as on e M ~l rima 1c ho las Philip Mushinga the 1 SL De fe ndant h erein who fikd a w llncss statemen t da ted August I 3 t h , 2024 a nd J 14 ,esi:.:-:ec 1:-: c!lief :ha someti~e in Juh· 2023. h e came across a 2 - ., ;:,.., o· \' : ~e ~1f:ed tha~ he got a contact number from the ad,·en and contactec he agen , one ~1ark Chanda and initiated discussions ::-ega:-ri:ng pu:-chase of the proper ry. 2 • - · . uW: esufiec har. he then made arrangements to ,isit. inspect and c·, a: uate :he proper . ·. 2 .55. u\\": r.estified that he togetheT \\;th the 2 ~d Defendant ,;sited the propc-::-1-:. but did not proceed to purchase it as the plot s ize did n ot :-r:.ee: tnc:r expectat:ons. 2 56 ::)',1 ; • .. cs:ified hat he dissatisfac tion was communicated to the cgc:-:: ~.iark Cha:,da who hen inform ed them about an altematin~ :,!0~ -;<.-in~ s o :d b~- o:ie Chiteka Kapcpula \\·ho was d escribed a s an o:c :;:c:.:-..; anc !-'.t~ p:- ... pen,· ,,as described as the remain ing extent 2 -S7 ,'. J·.1 •• tt"c, · 1fi,_d :ha th<:: agn·cd t (. \'ll'\\ th e property and the agent JlS 2 . 5 8 . D'A1 I testi fi e d I h a t a fte r scvc raJ visi t s to Lhc property, h e d ecided Lo proceed wi th th e purc h ase and the said ChiLe k a Ka pcpula a va iled hi m wit h hi s NRC, Ad vocate's bus ine ss c ard and a c opy of th e Cc.-tifica l c o f Title. 2 .59 . DWl t est ifi e d tha t he th e n engaged s ervices of Counse l to conduc t a sea rc h a t Ministry of Lan d s and p roceed ed wi th the c o n veyance if the informa tion was a ccura te. 2 .6 0 . DW 1 t e s tified th a t a fte r the Mini stry of Lands search , the Advocates provided h im with a registe r \.vhic h direc ted t hat Chiteka Ka pepula w as Lhc registe r ed owner of th e property a nd the prope rty was not e n c umbered . 2 .6 1. DW 1 furt her test ified that h e the n proceeded to instruc t his C o u n ~c l to ini tta lc the c on veya n cing p roc ess. 2 .62 . D W l Lcsti fi c:d t hat the agr eed purch ase p rice w as ZMW l .5 0 0 ,000 .0 0 wh ic h was to b e paid in two insta llment s . 2 .63. DV/ I tc slificd t hat upo n pHy mcnl o f th e full p urc h a s e price . the co nveyan cin g proced ure s \\.·e re follo we d o r do n e a n d t h e ) l>r and 2m 1 D cfc.: n chm b \ \ '<:n: issued \\ iLh :J Cc: n ifica tc o f T i tle . 2 .n' I D\V I Lc:~t if1c:d th:ll o n o r a bout Nove m be r 7 111 , 2 023 . h e wa s Sl1mm o m .:rl to g i \'1 ' :1 "'l,1ln nc11t ;1 1 \Voncl l ,tnd :-. Police Station r e lati n g .. Jl6 lo trespass and he was informed that th e con veyance m ay ha ve been sub· . ~cc t Lo 1l!cgalitv a nd fra ud . 2.65 ow J tc ·r· · sti 1ed that h e instructed his lawyers to confirm the raud . f allegations with the a lleged Chiteka Kapepula's lawyers who advised that they could nol reac h their client and provided his contact number which is unreachable to date. 2 .66. DWJ testified tha t he and the 2 11d Defendant purchased the propert:y in good faith and did not commit any fraud . 2.67. DWI lcstified that during the conveyancing transaction, he had no knowledge of the person he was dealing with and that he was not Lhe real Chiteke Kapepula and that h e was only made aware of this mon t hs ' after the conveyance was made. 2.68. ow 1 testified under cross examination lhat the Plaintiff and the purported Chireka Kapepula's RCs are different and that the NRC they used to change O\\'nership is not for the Plaintiff. '._ 69_ OW I tcs trned under cross exam in a tion tha l he met the Plaintiff for the I s l 1 imc al f h e Police S tn!ion . 70. OW 1 testified under cross examination that he did not sign the co n l e• · 1 t """'C' of s,dc with the P/,1i11tiff. 7 1 · • DW 1 tcslified under cross examination that the purc hase price was J 17 sent to the 3r,1 Defendant. · 72 · DW 1 further testified under cross examination that h e met th e sel ler once a nd that the seller is not U1e Plaintiff. 2.73. OW] testified that the 1s, and 2nc1 Defen dants have tried to bring the purported Chiteka Ka pepula before court through his 1awyer s b ut the attempts have been unsuccessful. 2. 74. DW 1 testified under cross examination that he first visited t h e Subject Property sometime in July, 2023 and that he saw some workers a nd neighbours but did not ask these p eople who the owner of t he prop erty v,1as. 2. 75. OW J testified that due diligence was conducted by dealing with the seller's lawyers and engaging on their behalf. 2.76. There \<\'as no re -exam ination . 2 _77. OW2 was one Masitala Nanyangwc, the 2 1111 Defen dant h erein \\'ho fil ed a witn ess sta tcmcn L dared I\ ugust I 3 1h , 2024 and testified in cl1icf that sometime in ,July, 2023 , the I ~r Defendant informed her abou c a plot in Jbcx Hill b eing advert ised in the llC\\' S . paper . 'J 78 DW2 testified thal they \\·c-rc.: d issatisfied \\'ith th, ~·. - · f c s ize o rhe plot . · ~1ftcr wh1d i t hl' agtnt informed tl1em 111·11 th c , en• \,·as nn old man Jl8 named Chitcka I<apcpula selling property na mely th e re maining exte nt of Lot No 11 306 / M . 2.79. DW2 testified that they visited the property on several occasions before making the decision to purchase the property. 2.80. DW2 testified that a fter ins pection of the property to their satisfaction , they informed the purported Chiteka Kapepula that they were ready to purchase the property. 2.8 1. DW2 further testified that the 1 s i and 2nc1 Defendants were availed with a copy of the seller's NRC, his lawyer's business card and a Certificate of Ti tle. 2.82 . DW2 testified t hat they retained Advocates to assist with the conveyance of the property and check whethe r it was e n cumbered or ind eed belonged to the purported Chiteke Kapepula. 2 .83 . OW2 testifit:d that OW 1 in structed Coun sel to conduct a search at Ministry o f Lands the search which revealed that the p roperty was free from any enc um brance. ? 84 _ DW2 testified t h at DWI th en ins tructed Couns I t e - · o s tart the com·cyancing process. JI9 -85- DW2 testified that the conveyance proces s begun and the full purchase price was paid after which the I i<1 and 2 11d Defendants wer e issued with a new Certificate of Title. 2 -86 . DW2 testified that 3 months after the conveyance was completed, the I s • Defendant was summoned to WoodJands Police Station where he was informed that he was trespassing on the property. 2.87. DW2 testified that DWI informed Counsel who then contacted the purported Chiteka Kapepula's lawyers who gave him the said Chiteka Kapepula's number \. Vhich is unreachable to date. 2.88. DW2 testified that she was unaware that the purported Chiteke l{apepula was not the actuaJ owner until they purchased the property. 2 .89. DW2 testified under cross exam inat ion that she did not meet the purported Chiteke Ka pepula . 2 _ 90. DW2 testified under cross examin a tion that they visited the property more than twice and found people built around the property but they did not ta lk or m eet any of them. 2 91 DW2 testified under cross examination that she ha ~ • • · c:: s never met the Pl ain I iff. - J20 2 .92 . DW2 testified in re-exa min ation lha t she did not m eet th e p urported Chitek a Kapcpula but th e 1st Defenda nt d id . 2.93. D\V3 wa s on e Mwewa Phiri who fil ed a witness state ment dated March 1 71h , 2 0 2 5 and testi fied in chief tha t the records a t Ministry of Land s reveal that the Subject Property was held on title under th e PJa ;ntifrs name since August 271h, 200 l . 2 .94. DW3 testified tha t the records furth er indicate th at the Subject Proper ty was a ssigned to the 1st and 2 nd Defendants on September 5th, 2023 accompanied by the issuance of a new Certificate of Title. 2.95. DW3 testified tha t all the n ecessary criteria for th e registration of t h e assignmen t was fulfilled and all neces sary procedures were du h· observed. 2 .96 . DW3 testified u nd er cross exam ination tha t according to th e La nd ·s Register a t entry nu m ber 16 , title was issued to the 1, 1 a nd 211c1 Defe ndan ts . 2 .97 . DW3 test i fied th a t s h e obscr\'ed d u ring t ria l tha t th e NRCs o n reco rd rcvcakd that th e Pl ainti ff \\'a s no t the pe rson w ho assigned tht: propert_\ and th · person who assign ed the u bjcct Prop e rty may han.: m 1srcp1 t·st:n tcd t h1.• Pbin1i 1T. r ■ J21 2 -9 8. DW3 te stifi ed under cros s examination thal v,rhen sh e vettc L e d h doc uments, sh e did not vet a gainst aJI Lhe documents existing on the file. 2 ·9 9 · There was no re-examination. 2 - 100. The CourL directed that OW3 produce the Green File before Court, which fil e was submitted to Court and Parties allowed to view it. 2. l O 1. DW3 testified that the NRC submitted during the first Certificate of Title in the name ofChiteke Kapepula (on August 27t h , 2001) was tha t of the Plaintiff and confirmed that the Plaintiff is the owner of NRC number 127879/ 31/1. 2 . 102 . DW3 further testified that the first Certificate of Title sitting on the Green File was issued to Chiteke Kapepula, the Plaintiff herein. 2 . J 0 3 . OW3 furth er testified that the Green File did not contain the con vey a nce doc uments pertaining to sell and transfer of the Subject Prop e rly Lo the I s t and 2 m l Defendants. Confirmed that the doc um e nts of a JJ 1 h e o th e r Sub-divisions are on the Green File. _ 10 4 . Tli c 3 r .1 o c rcndant did noL file any wiLn css sta Lement nor any Jcadinns save for Memorandum of Appearance "''ld O f P ~ e ence. As a b m a tter o f fa c t Lh c 3 r d Dcfe ndanL wa s no represented nor did they u tlc nd during Lrial. r 3. LAW AND SUBMISSION_§ J22 3 . 1. All partie r·1 • s 1 ed their written submissions. The Plamtlff filed on . . 24th April , 2025 the lsl and 2nd Defendant filed on May 22nd, 2025 and the 4th Defendant filed on August 21st, 2025 upon obtaining leave to file submissions out of time on. I shall not reproduce the submissions in full as the same are on record suffice to state that I h ave read and con sidered them . 3.2. The Plaintiff submitted that it is a notorious fact that in dealing with cases involving fraud and forgery, the Plaintiff has an obligation to prove his case. 3 .3. The Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff alleges fraud in the manner the property was sold by the purported Chiteka Kapepula who forged the NRC and Certificate of Title the Subject Property. 3 .4 _ The Pla intiff further submits that Section 33 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act provides that a Certificate of Title is conclusive evidence of ownership and that Section 34 allows challenging the Certificate of Ti tle where there is fraud. 5 Placing reliance of lhc cases of Sithole vs The State Lott 3 . . . enes Board (19 75) ZR 1061 a nd Charles Kajimanga vs Marmetu C h ilerny a (2 016) ZR 1892, The Plaintiff subm its th at lhis is a I I ( J23 proper case involving fraud and Certificate of Title issued in favour of the 1 "' a nd 2 nc1 Defendants is properly challenged. 3.6. The Plaintiff further submits that the principle of Bonafide Purchaser for Value Without Notice is never available in the presence of fraud and where a person who has no legal right to pass title to another and that for a party to benefit from the defence; the party relying on the defence should have purchased the property from the owner and not a fraudster. 3. 7. The Plaintiff submits that the l 61 and 2nd Defendants c1aim to have conducted a search at the Ministry of Lands by way of having the Lands Register printed and did not conduct a search on the Green File which is the s tandard of due diligence when purchasing land as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Elias Tembo vs Maure en Chirwa and Others Appeal No: 5 of 20183. 3 .8. The Plaintiff submits that the Lands print out produced by the 1 i-1 and 2"'' Defendants is of no consequence in light of the Supreme c ou rt case of Hlldah Ngosi (Suing as Admin istrato r o f th e e s tate o f the late Washingston Ngosi) v s The Atto rney G eneral a nd Ano ther SCZ Judgme nt No. 18 of 20 154 · m w ich it was held as h. . J24 Respond "The l 3t sh R ow that title espondent U. l 'k under Sectio 23 ent produced a computer print out to had properly passed on to the 2 nd · n I e a certificate issued by the Registrar n of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act, Chapter 185 .~ J the La.ws of Zambia, a computer print out is not conclusi·ve proof of any matter concerning a property. ,, · 9 - The Plaintiff submits that it is trite Jaw that land as valuable prop er ty calls for thorough investigations before purchase. Relia n ce was placed on the learned author of the book Land Law (Nutshells), 1994, Third Edition, London: Sweet and Maxwell in wh ich it was observed as follows; "A purchaser is under an obligation to undertake full investigation of title before completing his purchase. He can only plead absence of notice if he made all usual and proper enquiries. If he does not do so, or is careless or negligent, he is deemed to have "constructive notice" of all matters he would have discovered. A person has constructive notice of all facts of which he would have acquired actual notice had he made those inquiries and inspections which he ought reasonably to have made, the standard of prudence, being that of a man of business under similar circumstances. The purchaser should inspect the land and make inquiries as to anything which appears inconsistent with the title, offered by the vendor. ,, ,,, J25 3 . 10. The Plaintiff submits that the l st and 2nd Defendants were not Bonafide Purc h asers for Value Without Notice but were simply careless a nd negligent in the manner they transacted with a person they ne\·er met at all. Further that had they carried out due diligence by conducting a search on the Green File, t hey could have discovered the Plaintifrs NRC. 3.11. The Plain tiff submits that the Plaintiff has suffered damages arising from the 1 st and 2nd Defendant's actions and the 1st and 2 nd Defendants Counter Claim should be dismissed . 3. 12. In response, the 1st and 2°<1 Defendants submit that a Certificate of Title is conclusive evidence of ownership as per Section 33 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act and the Supreme Court decision of An ti -co rruption Comm ission v Barnet Development Corporation Limited (2008) ZRS. 3 . J 3. The 1st and 2 nd Defendants submit that Section 59 of the Lands an d Deeds Registry Act provides that a Bona fid p h e urc aser who pa~·s rel iable consideration acquires a good litl e. 3 . J 4. The 1 ' · and 2 n d Defenda n t s submit t h at LI 1ey con ducted all the r equired due dil igL·nce and that no adv . . e1 se claim s or encumb . tances \\ er e re,·c~ lccl. . J. 1 :- . Thl' I , 1 nna ) J26 - '"' D t' fcndants s b . .. .. '° r' bon a fd co n du - t c Plln:•h asc. C d LI mil th nl the I s, a nd 2 111 ' Defendants I s or value without adverse n o tice a nd they c:-t c- due ctT 1 igcn cc before purchasing the properly. 3 • 1 :'>. The I s, d an 211r1 D r c,cnda nts submit that th e Pla intiff h as alleged fra ud a n d u iat ias n o t proved the fraud . 3. 17. The 1 :.land 2ncl D f e endants submit that the 1111 and 2 nd Defendants a rc undisputedly in p ossessio n of a Tit le Deed whic h grants them u nequivocal rights over the property and th at the law only permits fraud as a vitiati n g facto r. 3. 1 8 . The 1 s, a nd 2nd Defendants submit that the particulars of the allegations of fraud must be clearly and distinctJy pleade d and pro\·ed by evidence and that there can be no presumptio n of fraud . 3. I 9. The J :-1 a nd 2nJ Defendants submit that the Plaintiff h as failed to meet rhe requir ed sta ndard of proof a nd failed to lead evide n ce to proof the frau d . ?Q The 1, , :ind 2 n d Defenda nts furth e r su bmit tha t there is a n issue of 3 .- . n eglige n c e to be dete rm in e d f!s rela tes 10 th e Jrd a nd 41h Dcfc nci.-111 ts. _ 3 . T h <' 1 ::;t a nd 2 n d Dcfc nd:_111Ls s u b m it t ha t 3 1·d a n d 4th defendan ts ,J () \ \'Cll , . . -~ du r ,· l)f c-;1n: to ensure th at chc: lnnd l ran sact ion and 1·ts • ----- J27 documentation wer I e egally sound, authentic and properly verified and the failure th ereof amounted to breaching of duty. 3.22. The 1st a d 2 n nd Defendants submit that the 3rd Defendant feJJ below the . t d s an ard of professional care thereby breach mg their . duty and enabling a fraudulent conveyance. 3.23. The 1st and 2nd Defendants submit that they have suffered damage as a result of the 3rd and 4th Defendant's action. 3.24. The 4 th Defendant submits that when a party alleges fraud, that party is obligated to provide proof of their allegations and that the burden of proof required as greater than that in a standard civil action. 3.25. The 4 ,11 Defendant submits that the Ministry of Lands is a public body and liability in negligence must be established by demonstrating the existence of the government institution. 3 _26 _ The 4 111 Defendant submit that there exists no express statutory provision within the Laws of Zambia which specifically mandated or imposes upon the Ministry of lands and Natural Resources a duty to detecl fra ud . I 3.27. The 4 1h O t e cndant submits that the inability of the Ministry of J28 Lands to dct h ect t e a lleged fraud docs not constitute negligence on the part of the 4 1h Defendant. 4 · COURTS DECISION 4 · 1 · 1 have had occasion to review and consider the Parties pJeadingS, evidence and submissions for which 1 am grateful. Having con sidered the Plaintifrs claims and the l s' and 2 nd Defendants counter-claim, the legal issues for determinatfon can be summed up follows; i) Whether the J st and 2°<1 Defendants have valid title over the Subject Property ; and ii) Whether the Defendant can recover from the 3 rd and 4 th Defendants. . 2 . section 33 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act provides that a Certificate of Ti tle is conclusive evidence of ownership of land by a holder of a Certificate of Title. Section 33 provides as follows: ''A c e rtificate of Tit le shall be conclusive as from the date of its issue and upon and after the issue thereof, not w ithstanding the existence in any other person of any est ate or interes t, whether derived by grant from the Presid ent or otherwise, which but for Parts III to VII might be he ld to be paramount or to have p riority; the Registered ( J29 Proprietor of the land comprised tn such Certificate shall, except in case of fraud, hold the same subject only to such encumbrances, liens, estates or interests as may be shown by such Certificate of Title and any encumbrances, liens, estates or interests created after the issue of such Certificate as may be notified on thefolium of the Register relating to such land but absolutely free from all other encumbrances, liens, estates or interests whatsoever." 4 .3 . Punhe rm o re Section 34 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act, provides that a Cer tificate of Title can b e ch alle nged and c ancelled for fra ud or reason o f im propriety in its acq u is ition. 4 .4 . Section 34{ lt(c) of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act provide s as foll ow s ; u34_ (1) No action for possession, or other action for the recovery of any land, shall lie or be sustained against the Registered Proprietor holding a Certificate of Title for the estate or interest in respect to which he is registered, except in any of the following cases, that is to say: (c) the case of a person deprived of any land by fraud, as against the person registered as proprietor of such land through fraud, or against a person deriving otherwise than a s a transferee bona.fide for value from or througha p e r s on so regis t e red through fraud". 4 . S . T h e Su p r e me C o un in th t· c,\SL' of Charles K ajirna nga v Marmetus Chilcrnya SCZ Appeal No. 50 of 20142 s ta tC'd a s fo llo w s: J30 ·~ cert ;1; 'J .cate of title is conclusive evidence of owners rp h · of the property to which it relates. Jt can only be nullified if fraud in acquisition is proved." -L6. The Plaintiff contends that there was fraud in the way the 1 "' and 2110 Defendants obtained their Certificate of TiUe of the Subject Property. 4 .7. It is a trite principle of law that in order for an allegation of fraud to succeed, it must be specifically pleaded and proved to the required standard of proof which is slightly higher than the balance of probability . Jn the case of Nkongolo Farm Limited v Zambia National Commercial Bank Limited & Others, SCZ Appeal No. 101 of 20046 it was held that: "Where a party relies on any misrepresentatfon, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence by another party, he must supply the necessary particulars of the allegation in the pleadings. Fraud must be precisely alleged and strictly proved. There is no presumption of fraud. " .s. The ca se of Rosemary Phiri Mazada v Award Karen Coleen (2008) ZR 1297 is instructive on the principle th a t w en there is h a n a llegation of fr:rnd in a case, lhc partv all · egmg the fraud must • specifically prove th e allegation. ll \\'as held in . t h1s case as follows: ------------- , J31 "A Def end t an wishing to rely on the defence of frau mus d t · ensure that it is clearly and d istinctly alleged. At trial the Defendant must lead evidence to clearly and distinctly prove t he allegation". 4 . 9. Furthermore, lhe Supreme Court in the case of Sallas Ngowani and Others v Flamingo Farm Limited Appeal No. 90 of 2016 a lso stated as follows: "Where fraud is the basis for the application for an order directing cancellation, such fraud must be specifically alleged in the pleadings and proved at trial". 4 .1 0. On perusal of the record before me, it can be revealed that the Plaintiff has specifically alleged fraud in paragraph 9 of the Plaintiff's Amended Sta tement of Claim. Furthermore, the eviden ce on record proves that indeed there was fra ud . The Plain tiff was before Court and it has been proved th at he is the real Ch itekc Kapepula a nd a comparison of the NRC's a ppearing at page 9 of th e Plaintiff's bund le of documents and Page 19 of the 1 s, and 2nr1 Defendants bu ndle of documents shows th a t the purpor ted Chiteke J(apcpupla wh o is the seller forged the NRC at pa gc o t e J s, f h ..ind 2,.,1 Defendan ts bund le of doc umen1s in O d . r ci to p ass off as th e Plaintiff. A further perusa l of the Certi ficates f T " itlc a ppearing on . record s how discrepa ncies; The Plaint ·rr C .. 1 s e, llficatc of Ti tle reads the 'remaining' extent of Lot N I l JOf> u. / M Lusaka wh ile th e ( J 32 purpo rted C hite ke I( a pcpula 's Certificate of Title reads 'Remaing Exte nt of Lot N . . f h o. 11306 / M Lusaka of which the word Lot is wntten ' diffe rcntlv o b I · n ot 1 Certificates of Title. f,urthcr. the top nght o t e Pl . ·r a mt1 rs Certificate of Title front page reads DRJ while the Purporte d Chiteke l<apepula's reads DR I Ob. The evidence adduced also shows that the foroed NRC was used to obtain the Certificate t> of Title held by 1 s1 and 2 n d Defendants. 4. 1 1. The 4 th De fendant has also adduced evidence to show that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the Subject Property and that the Seller obtained a duplicate Certificate of Title fraudulently, the title which \\'as used in the conveyancing process under which the l st and 2 nd Defendants obtained their Certifica te of Title appearing a t page 62 of the I ~1 and 2nd Defe ndants bundle of docume nts, a t the 1,1 and 2 nd Defendants cost. 4 . 12 . rn light o f the foregoin g, I am sa tisfied that indeed the re was fra ud in th e \\'ay the Is • and 2nd Defenda nts obtained title and the fraud has been proved to the requite standard . I order tha t th e Certifica te of Tille 1o. CT l 750 / 9-2023 BE a nd JS HEREBY cancelled forth with and Lhe Deed of Assignment registered by the 1st a nd 2 nd Dcfcnda nl s re la ting to 1hc Su bject Propert\' ·18 d , - ,·oid . I furr h cr order tha t the J,, and 2 nt1 0 < cc ared null a nd r e,endants s u rre nde r vacan t po ~scs s ion of lhc Su bicct p J ro pen y to the Pl a intiff and if , ( J33 there arc a n , d ~ cvclopm<' nt s on the Subject Proper ty, the a,n Pl · tiff is a t liberty to d emolis h the same, a t the cost of the l s1 and 2nc1 Defendants. 4. l 3. I now address my mind to the second iss u e of whether the J s1 and 20" Defendants h ave a valid cla im against the 3 rd and 41h Defendants. The IM and 2nc1 Defendants impute n egligence on t he part of the 3 rd and 4 1h Defendants. 4 . 14. From the onset, I must sta te that I h ave taken note of th e lS t and 2 nd De fendants de fence of Bonafide PUrchaser for Value Without Notice. I t is trite that the defence can only be relied on if it can be shown t h at the party relying on the defen ce made all the proper and usual enquiries. The l s t and 2nd Defendants state that they con ducted a search at th e Ministry of Lands and rely of the Lands print out to show th at they carried out sufficient d u e diligen ce. I am of the consider ed view that t h e l st and 2nd Defendan ts did not carry out al l propc.:r and usual enquires requi red as related to th e purchase of land ; the case of Hildah Ngosi ( suing as . Administrator of the estate of Washington Ngosi) v The Attorney Gen e ral and Another SCZ Judgment No. 18 of 20154 rcft.:rs. IL was st~ted in this case as follows: "The 1st Respondent produced a c omputer print show that title had pronerly r passed out to on to the 2nd r ♦ ( -------- J34 Respondent. Unlik e a certificate issued by the Registrar unde r section 2 3 of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act, Chapter 185 of the Laws of Zambia, a computer printout is not conclusive proof of any mailer concerning a property. " 4.15 . The J rd Defe ndant owed the t ~t a nd 2nd Defe ndants a duty of care to ensure that their client's identity was true and h ad a legitimate interest in th e property failure to which, jt amou nted to breach of the dutv and the 1st and 2nc1 Defendant's have s uffered loss; therefore, the J st and 2nd Defendants have a valid claim in n egligence against the 3rd Defendant. 4 .16. The Court of Appeal decision of Sydney Choonga v Yona Daka and Mu.leza Mwiimbu and Company Appeal No. 209 of 20249 is instructive on how to approach such matters. T he Court in this matter stated as follows : "However, as rightly pointed out by the Appellant, the trans action was governed by the LAZ General Conditions of Sale, which were expressly incorpo t d . ra e tn Clause l of t he contract of sale. These General C onditions impose specific responsibilities on a vend ors responsibi li.ties on a legal practitioner, especially when that practitioner receives a nd hold the p h urc ase sum . tn trust. General l J35 Condition 3(b) explicitly states that the deposit is to be paid to the vendor's advocate as stakeholder for the parties, while General Condition 7(1. J and (vi} makes it clear that funds must be held in trust and refunded if the purchaser does not receive vacant possession. These provisions make it abundantly clear that once the vendor's advocate receives the purchase sum in trust, they are not merely an agent but a stakeholder. We a.re of the firm view that these conditions are not merely procedural, they are protective in nature, intended to safe guard the interests of purchasers who may otherwise be vulnerable in conveyancing transactions. They define the Advocates relationship with both parties and impose a clear obligation on the vendors Advocate's relationship with both parties and impose a clear obligation on the vendor's advocates to act with integrity and impartiality in handling the deposit" . Furthe rm o re, the Court went on the stat A us follows : " ... the role of a stakeholder is fundamentally different from that of a mere agent. Unlike an agent, who owes duties solely t o t heir princ ipal, a stakeholder e s pecially in the conveyancing c ont ex t, assume fiduciary duties to J36 th bo parties in a transaction and must act impartially. This dual duty cannot be avoided by pleading lack 01 Privity with the purchaser". 4 · 1 7 · In light of the above authority a nd m light of that fact that t he con tract of sale between the 1 s1 and 2nc1 Defcndan ts and the purported Chiteke Kapepula was governed by the Law Association of Zambia General Conditions 2018, I find that the 3rd Defend ant had a duty to protect the I st and 2nd Defendants by ensuring their client's identity was true and had va lid title over the Subject Proper ty. 4. I 8. The 3 rd Defendant received payment as a stakeholder and therefore, the 3n1 Defendant had a duty to ensure that the money was paid to a genuine vendor, the case of Abenas United Limited v J. C Malunga and Company Appeal No. 150 of 20171° refers. I therefore order that the 3r1t Def end ant pays the J '-1 and 2 nd Defendants the sum of ZMW 1,500 ,000.00 and fu rther order that interest be paid on the sum a t the average s hort-term bank d eposit rate from the date o f issu e of the Writ o f S ummons to the date of Lhis J udgm en t and thereafter. up to the date of settlement. imcrest shall be compuced a t the current lending rate as determined by the Bc1nk of Za mbia. , J37 4 · 19· 1 am of t h e considered view that the Ministry of Lands has a duty to prevent fraud by ensuring that all documents lodged speal< to those existing on the Green File. A Registrar issuing/c hanging title is reasonably expected to ins pect all documents on record faiJure to \\'hich Lhere will be negligence on the part of the Registrar and in an event that loss is occasioned to a party/ parties, liabili ty in negligence arises. The 4th Defendant therefore, had a du ty to prevent fraud by carefully reviewing all documents on record ; had DW3 d one Lhe same, the fra ud wouJd h ave been detec ted and prevented. The 4•h Defendant failed to exerc ise such care thereby causing the 1 ~1 and 2 nd Defendant to suffer loss. 4 .20 . The 1 ~• and 2 nd Defendant are therefore, entitled to damages in light of the a bove. As the record will show, th e Jst and 2 n d Defendants have not shown/proved the extent of damage or in an event tha t there a re improvements on the Subject Property, the exte nt of the improvements. I rh e refore, r e fer this matter to the Honourable Dist rict Regis trar for assessment of d a mages as r e la tes to th e 1 i.i a n d 2 n" Defendants claim . Th ese damages found due a r e to b e paid by the 4' h Defendant. 4 -2 1- The Plaintiff and J-.• and 2 1111 Dcfcndanls ha,·c claimed fo r d amaocs b for m <.:ntal distress a nd, I shal l dea l ,s,•it h their claims collecli\'e)\'. r J38 .. J - 1 · The Supreme Coun in the case or Robert Owen Harris v Mopani Copper Mine PLC Appeal No. 167 of 201311 g uickd ,s follo"·s : '' ... a claim for mental distress or angu ish is a separate head which the trial Court is obliged to consider, when pleaded. " 4.23. On perusal of the record. I do n ol see any e,,idence or circumstance w h ich shows that the parties suffered m e n tal distress/ a nguish of an,· kind . I therefore dismiss the claims as relates to damages for me-n tal distress and a nguish . 4 __ -t. 1 must srace for the record that che Ministry of Lands should a t al l times ex ercise/ carry out cheir duties ,dth outmost care a nd diligence. The laxity and neglige nce ex hi bited in handling of th is con,·e_,·ance is unforrunate. -L15. The Plain ti IT also claims damages for trespass. Trespass to land can be defined as the unjustified / unla wful interferenc e \\i th the possession of land. Halsbury>s Laws of England Volume 38 in paragraph 1205 at page 738 tates as fo llows: uEvery unlawful entry by one person on land i n possession of another is trespass for wh ich an action lies although no actual damage is done ... A person trespasses upon land if he wrongfully sets foot on, rides or drives o ver i t , or t akes possession or pu lls do w n or d e stroys anyth i ng permane ntly fixed ." J39 -L26. ln order for a p"'··tv lo <U ~, succee m a claim for Lrespass, 1t mu d . · st be shown that the party claiming is the owner of the property a nd he/ she did not invite th e persons (purported trespassers) on th e property . The case of Paul Chitengi v Attorney General 2017/HP/1552 12 refers for persuasive authority. 4 .2 7. In Lhe present case, it has been established that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the Subject Property and did not invite the 1 st and 2nr1 Defendants onto the property. I am of the view that there has been a violation of the Plaintiffs right of possession and the right of the use of th e property has been disturbed by the 1st and 2nc1 Defendants and therefore, the l si and 2nd Defendants are liable in tres pass. The case of Shell and BP Zambia Limited v Conidaris and Others (1974J Z. R. 281 so refers. I therefore order Lhat the 1"'' a nd 2 nd Defendants pay th e Plaintiff damages in the sum of Zt\1\V 50,000.00. 5. CONCLUSI ON J40 5. 1. ln light of the foregoing, I order as follows: i) Certificate of Title No. CT 1750 /9-2023 belonging to the J ~1 and 2 nd Defendants be cancelled forthwith; ii) Vacant possession of the Subject Property be handed over to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is at liberty to demolish any structures on the Subject Property, at the 1st and 2 nd Defendants cost; iii) The 3rt1 Defendant pays the 1st and 2 nd Defendants the sum of ZMW 1,500,000.00 and interest be paid on the sum at the average short-term bank deposit rate from the date of issue of th e Writ of Summons to the date of this Judgment and thereafter, up to the date of settlement, interest shall be computed at the current lending rate as determined by the Bank of Zambia; iv) The l ••1 a nd 2 nd Defendants claim as relates to damages for th e 4 111 Defendant's negligence su cceeds and is referred to the Dis trict Registrar for assessment of damages; and v) The I ' 1 and 2 11•1 Defendants pay the Plaintiff damages for trespass in th e sum of ZMW 50.000,00. 5 2. Costs for the Plaintiff to be paid by the Defendant 's in equal portion a nd 10 be taxed in default of agreement. J41 5.3. I further ordc th· • · r at interest shall he paid on a ll s ums found uc d , lO the Pl · ·rr amt, and the I 111 and 2 11<1 Defendants at the a verage short- t erm b · a nk deposit rate from the date of issue of the W ·t of n Su mmon s to the date of this Judgment a nd thereafter, up to th e date of settlement , interest shall be computed at the cu rrent lending rate as determined by the Bank of Zambia; 5.4 . Leave to a ppeal is granted . Delivered at Lusaka on December 9 th , 2025. I"' l i \ H~~ UBLIC OF ZAMBIA COURT OF ZAMBIA _ __ _s:::::a...,,~_.::U~"U~ -1-· s. CHOCHO bl, HIGH COURT JUDGE lf4I U 9 DEC 20Z5 ~ S. CHOCHo J P. 0 . BOX 50067, LUSA. KA