The Director of Public Prosecutions v Lt Gen Eric Mwaba Chimese and Ors (2024 /HPEF /004) [2025] ZMHC 11 (18 March 2025)

I 2024 /HPEF /004 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA AT THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL - p CRIMES REGISTRY HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) IN THE MATTER OF: ------- .-' I I JG OF :1,;., • If, ..:!lf1 HIGH CO' IP.1 r ECOMDr • • r. , , • ,_ • • ' , u:v.:::011 ·- ·-··- -~-l ., _ , · - \'• ~ 18 1' ~') , ~"':-; .r_\}. 1-.....,.. L-- ~· ' -~ _ j _ ~::c.t.., .~., 1 SECTIONS 291_~ ~- AND.31 OF1TffE FORFEITURE OF PROCEED. OF CRIME ACT NUMBER 19 OF 2010. IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 21(1)(a)(b) OF THE ANTI•CORRUPTION ACT NO. 3 OF 2012. IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 36(b) OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT NO. 3 OF 2012. IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 71(1) OF THE FORFEITURE OF PROCEEEDS OF CRIME ACT NO. 19 OF 2010. BETWEEN: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPLICANT AND IN RE PROPERTY: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF SUBDMSION F/2303/Q 4TH STREET, IBEX HILL IN LUSAKA, FARM 4301/313 EUREKA BAOBAB AREA MUSEKESE DRIVE IN LUSAKA, PART F/181a/C/l MUNGWI ROAD LUSAKA WEST, 10 x 49 INCH SAMSUMG Rll Page Scanned with Ci CamScanner· TELEVISION SETS, K48,458.00, K90,000.00, 107.00 UNITED STATES DOLLARS, 100 POUNDS, 1 YEN, 10,000.00 UNITED STATES DOLLARS. LT. GEN. ERIC MWABA CHIMESE 1 8 T INTERESTED PARTY CHITA LODGE LIMITED 2ND INTERESTED PARTY SHARON GRAY 3RD INTERESTED PARTY HECTOR KALUBA CHIMESE 4TH INTERESTED PARTY BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICES P. K. YANGAILO, A. MALATA• ONONUJU ANDS. V. SILOKA, IN CHAMBERS, ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. For the Applicant: Mrs. M . Kapambwe-Chitundu, Deputy Chief State Advocate & Ms. M . Luhanga, State Advocate - National Prosecutions Authority. For the Interested Parties: Mr. M. Haimbe - Haimbe Legal Practitioners; & Mr. L . Phiri - Lucky, Lloyd and Newmann Legal Practitioners. RULING P. K. YANGAILO, J., DELIVERED THE RULING OF THE COURT. CASES REFERRED TO: " 1. Bank of Zambia u Al Shams Building Materials Company Limited, Jayesh Shah and Attorney General - CAZ/ 430/2 023 2. Intellige nt Mobility Solutions Limited u Lamise Trading Limited - Appeal No. 2 14 of 2022; R21P age Scanned with Ci} CamScanner· 3. Twampane Mining Cooperative Society Limited u EM a 11d Storti Mit1irrg Limited - SCZ Judgment No. 20of2011; 4. Henry Kapoko u The People - Se lected Judgment No. 43 o/2016; 5 . Madison General Insurance u Aurill Comhill and Michael Kakoma (2 020) ZMSC 168; and 6. National Breweries Pie u Chakana Investment Limited- CAZ No. 6 of 2022. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1. The High Court Act, Chapter 27, Volume 3 of the Laws of Zambia; 2. The Constitution of Zambia Amendment Act No. 2 of2016; and 3. The Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No. 19 of 2010. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This is the Ruling on the Interested Parties' Application to dismiss the matter for failure to adhere to the Court's Order in the Ruling dated 15th November, 2024. The Application is made pursuant to Order XXX, Rule 1 and Order m, Rule 2 of The High Court Rules1• 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The background to this Matter is that by Ruling dated 15th November, 2024, this Court, inter alia, directed the Director of Public Prosecutions ("DPP"), who is the Applicant herein, to give Notice of the Proceedings within 14 days thereof, to Chita Lodges Limited, Sharon Gray Chimese and Hector Kaluba Chimese; and to publish in the Gazette or a daily newspaper of general circulation in Zambia, a Notice of the Application. R31Pa ge Scanned with ~ CamScanner- 2.2 The Applicant did not give the Notice of the Proceedings within 14 days and publish the Notice of the Application in the Gazette or a daily newspaper as was directed. Instead, the Applicant gave Chita Lodges Limited, Sharon Gray Chimese and Hector Kaluba Chimese photocopies of the Notice of the Proceedings outside the time frame directed by the Court, without making the necessary Application before this Court. Further, the Applicant published a Notice of Hearing in the Zambia Daily Mail, instead of the Notice of the Application as was ordered by the Court. 2.3 It is _against this backdrop that the Interested Parties have made the Application under consideration. 3. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION 3.1 By the Affidavit in Support of the Summon to Dismiss Matter for failure to adhere to the Court Order, jointly deposed by Eric Mwaba Chimese, Sharon Gray and James Kasanga Chungu, it was averred, inter alia, that on 15th November, 2024, this Court delivered a Ruling wherein the Applicant was directed to serve the 2°d, 3rc1 and 4 th Interested Parties with the Originating Process within 14 days of the aforesaid Court Ruling, as well as advertise the Notice of Proceedings in the Government Gazette and/ or Newspaper, which was not done. It was asserted R41Page Scanned with Ci CamScanner- that the Court process was to be served on all the Interested Parties on or before the 29th November, 2024. 3 .2 It was further deposed that instead of serving the Court process on or before 29th November, 2024, the Applicant served the said documents on the 2°d, 3 rd and 4th Interested Parties on the 5th and 6th of December, 2024, without making an Application before this Court for extension of time within which to serve the Originating Process. Copies of the letters of service serving the Court process by the Applicant marked "EMCSGCJKCla-lc", were produced. 3.3 The Deponents asserted that the Applicant served photocopies of the Originating Summons on the Interested Parties whom this Court directed to be served instead of filing or making an Application for leave to file Concurrent Originating Summons for the purposes of service. It was avowed that the Depopents have been advised by their Advocates, which they believe to be true, that it does offend the rules of service of documents. 3.4 The Deponents stated that they were further advised that since the Applicant disregarded the procedure of service and the Orders made by this Court, under the Ruling dated 15th November, 2024, the Court should dismiss the Applicant's Application before it. RSI Page Scanned with ~ CamScanner- SKELETON ARGUMENTS 4 .1 The Interested Parties augmented their Application with Skeleton Arguments, wherein Counsel for the Interested Parties stated, inter alia, that the Application is made pursuant to Order XXX, Rule 1 and Order HI, Rule 2 of The High Court Rules1• Counsel submitted that by the cited provisions of law, this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the Application before it. 4.2 It was contended that by not serving and/or advertising the Notice of Application in relation to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties, the Applicant ignored the Court's Order which was made in the Ruling of 15th November, 2024. It was submitted that the Applicant was given sufficient time by this Court to rectify their mistake but to no avail. The case of Bank of Zambia v Al Shams Building Materials Company Limited, Jayesh Shah and Attorney General1, where the Court of Appeal emphasised the need to obey Court Orders, was cited in fortifying the foregoing submission. 4 .3 Counsel submitted that the Applicant is a State's body and it is highly likely that the lax approach to these Court proceedings is because this Court is being taken for granted, hence Leave not even being sought from this Court when serving the Court documents on the Interested Parties. R61P age i Scanned with Ci CamScanner-! -------- ----·······---------· 4.4 It was further submitted that the Applicant served photocopies of the Court documents on the 2 n d , 3 rd , and 4th Interested Parties, instead of serving Concurrent Originating Summons. Counsel cited Order VIII, Rules 1 and 2 of The High Court Rules1 in support of the foregoing submission. 4.5 Counsel also cited the case of Intelligent Mobility Solutions Limited v La.mise Trading LimitetP, wherein the Court of Appeal upheld the holding of the High Court's decision to expunge an Affidavit copy which was filed into Court. Based on the foregoing, Counsel submitted that the Applicant cannot serve a photocopy of the Court documents as an Originating Process on the other party. It was contended that the correct thing to do should have been to file further Concurrent Originating Summons, which should have been served on the Interested Parties. 4 .6 In support of the averment that the Applicant disregarded the Order of the Court, Counsel cited the case of Twampane Mining Cooperative Society Limited v EM and Storti Mining Limited3 as follows : - "Litigants who chose not to follow courts rules do so at their own peril." R7 I P a g e Scanned with Ci} CamScanner· AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION 5 .1 The Application is opposed by the Applicant, who filed herein an Affidavit in Opposition to the Affidavit in Support of the Summons to dismiss Matter for failure to adhere to the Court's Order, which was deposed by Lilian Mubialelwa, a Deputy Director in the employ of Drug Enforcement Commission ("DEC") under the Anti-Money Laundering Investigations Unit. 5.2 The Deponent deposed, inter alia, that in its Ruling dated 15th November, 2024, this Court directed the Applicant to serve the 2nd, 3 rd and 4th Interested Parties with the Court Originating Process within 14 days of the Ruling, as well as advertise the Notice of Proceedings in the Government Gazette and/or Newspaper. She vied that contrary to the misleading statements of the Interested Parties, the advertisement of the Notice of the Proceedings was placed in the Daily Mail Newspaper on 26th and 27th November, 2024. Copies of the Advertisements in the Zambia Daily Mail marked "LMl" and "LMl(i)" were produced. 5 .3 The Deponent further vied that on 27th November, 2024, an Affidavit of Service was filed into Court in relation to the advertisement of the Notice of the Proceedings. A copy of the Affidavit of Service marked "LM2" was produced. RBI Pa ge : Scanned with ! Li} CamScanner· ·---------·-······----------- 5.4 The Deponent avowed that while the Applicant failed to serve the process on the Interested Parties within 14 days as Ordered, it had complied with the Court's directive to advertise the process in a daily newspaper within the prescribed time. She asserted that the Daily Mail Newspaper served as Notice to the Interested Parties and demonstrated the Applicant's commitment to fulfilling the Court's directives to the best of its ability. 5.5 It was asserted that she had been advised by Counsel and believed to be true that the Applicant served an Originating Notice of Motion and not Originating Summons. Copies of letters of acknowledgment marked "LM3" ~d "LM3(i)" were produced. 5.6 The Deponent vied that she had been advised by Counsel and believed the same to be true that in as much as it was regrettable and off ends the rules of service, her failure to serve the process within the prescribed time does not go to the substance of this matter. She asserted that the delay in effecting the service of the process was not intentional or in bad faith but was due to administrative challenges. 5. 7 It was averred that she had been advised by Counsel and believed the same to be true that the Applicant complied with the Orders of the Court when it advertised a Notice of the Proceedings in the Newspaper, filed an Affidavit of R91P age Scanned with ~ CamScanner- Service and served the Interested Parties with a slight delay. 5.8 It was further averred that the process has been served on the Interested Parties, and they are in a position to respond to the matter. It was asserted that any inconvenience caused to the Interested Parties as a result of the delay can be addressed through an appropriate Order for Costs. 5.9 The Deponent vied that the dismissal on the basis of the delay would deprive the Applicant of the opportunity to be heard and to have the substantive issues in this matter determined on their merits. 5.10 The Deponent avowed that granting the Order sought by the Interested Parties, based on a technicality, will not only prejudice the Applicant but justice as a whole. It was asserted that it is in the interest of justice for this Court to excuse the delay in service and allow this matter to proceed. 6. SKELETON ARGUMENTS 6.1 By the Applicant's Skeleton Arguments in Opposition to the Interested Parties' Application, the Applicant's Counsel submitted, inter alia, that the failure to comply with the Court's Directive to serve the other Interested Parties within 14 days is a procedural lapse and not one that is fatal to the substantive merits of this case. Counsel cited RlO I P age Scanned with ~ CamScanner· Artie le 118 (2) (e) of The Constitution of Zambia2 , which provides as follows : - "Justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities." 6.2 It was submitted that Courts have consistently held that technical lapses should not override the primary objective of adjudicating matters on their merits, particularly where the opposing party has not suffered any irreparable prejudice. The case of Henry Kapoko v The People4 was cited in support of the submission that dismissing the Application based on a technicality will cause a manifest injustice as the Applicant took material strides to comply with the Orders of the Court as evidenced by the exhibit marked "LM2" in the Applicant's Affidavit in Opposition herein, alluding to the fact that the Applicant advertised the Notice of the Proceedings in the Newspaper and further served the Interested Parties. 6.3 Counsel asserted that the Applicant has demonstrated substantial compliance with the Court's Directions as the advertisement provided constructive notice to all the Interested Parties, mitigating any potential prejudice caused by the late service. 6.4 Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court of Zambia has consistently held that procedural lapses should not override the determination of cases on their n1erits. To this RU I P age Scanned with Ci CamScanner- effect, the case of Madison General Insurance v Avrill Cornhill and Michael Kakoma5 was cited. 6.5 It was further submitted that a few days' lapse does not go to the substance of the matter and that this Court has the jurisdiction to determine this matter on its merits without paying undue regard to the technicalities. 6.6 Counsel submitted that the Interested Parties have not demonstrated any substantive prejudice from the delay in the service. She contended that it is an undeniable fact that the Interested Parties have been fully aware of these Proceedings for several months and have actively participated through their legal representatives. Based on this, it was submitted that the delay in the service has not caused any material prejudice to the Parties. 6.7 Counsel also submitted that the Interested Parties have not demonstrated how the delay in service risks rendering these Proceedings nugatory. It was contended that the substantive issues remain unaffected. 6 .8 Counsel argued that dismissing this Matter on the basis of a procedural lapse would deprive the Applicant of its fundamental right to be heard. It was further argued that dismissing the matter for a minor procedural lapse would be a disproportionate response and would result in manifest injustice. Counsel submitted that the overriding R12 IP ag e i Scanned with Ci CamScanner-! ------------·······---------· objective of this Court is to achieve substantial justice between the Parties. It was asserted that dismissing this matter on the basis of procedural lapse would result in an unduly harsh outcome that undermines this objective. 6 .9 Counsel prayed that the Interested Parties' Application to dismiss the matter be dismissed for lack of merit; that this Court exercises its discretion to allow the substantive Application to proceed and that the focus of this matter be shifted to determining whether the property in question is tainted as opposed to dwelling on frivolous procedural issues. 7. AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY 7 .1 The Affidavit in Reply was deposed by James Kasanga Chungu, a Director and Shareholder of Chita Lodges Limited, an Interested Party herein. The Deponent vied, inter alia, that he had been advised by Counsel and believed to be true that a 'Notice of Application' is not the same as a 'Notice of Hearing' and what was advertised in the newspaper was a Notice of Hearing and not a Notice of Application as directed by this Court. 7.2 It was deposed that he had been advised by Counsel and believed to be true that the Notices of Hearing that were put in the Newspaper, exhibited as "LMl" and "LM2" are only indicative that the matter was coming up on a R13 IP age Scanned with Ci Ca mSca nne r- particular date and not indicating that there is a particular Application before this Court. 7 .3 The Deponent vied that he had been advised by Counsel and believed the same to be true that the issue of whether what was served was an Originating Notice of Motion or an Originating Summons, is neither here nor there, as the main issue for determination is that the Applicant did not serve the Originating Process as directed by this Court, but instead served it late without Leave of this Court. 7.4 It was avowed that if there were any administrative challenges, the Applicant would have made an Application for extension of time within which to serve Court Process. It was asserted that a Notice of Application was not advertised and further, that the Originating Process was served late after the time dictated by this Court. 7 .5 The Deponent vied that he had been advised by Counsel and believed to be true that the lax behaviour exhibited by the Applicant is not only prejudicial to the Interested Parties, but it also affects the Court's case management by extending the time period within which Matters should be disposed of in the Economic and Financial Crimes Court which is a fast-track Court. R14 I P age i Scanned with Ci CamScanner·! -------- ----·······---------· SUBMISSIONS AT THE HEARING 8 .1 At the hearing of the Application, the Interested Parties' Counsel reiterated the contents of the Affidavit in Support of the Application that by the Ruling dated 15th November, 2024, the Applicant was given a second chance to serve the Interested Parties with the Notice of the Application. Counsel called in aid the case of National Breweries Plc v Chakana Investment Limited6, wherein the Court of Appeal had occasion to deal with an appeal where the Appellant was appealing against the decision in which the matter was dismissed for not following Orders for Directions and attempted to rely on Article 118 (2) (e) of The Constitution2 . It was affirmed that the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the matter for failure to adhere to the Order for Directions. 8.2 Counsel implored this Court that the Orders given on 15th November, 2024, in the Court's Ruling, were disregarded by the Applicant. Counsel submitted that this Court has a limited time-frame to hear and determine matters, and that the Applicant not following the Court's guidance, gives room for applications to be made, which in turn not only extends the Court's time in which to h ear the m ain Application but also to hear an Applica tion that is born of the unnecessary wanton acts of the Applicant. RlS I P age Scanned with Ci} CamScanner· 8.3 Counsel submitted that this Court should show the Applicant its wrath as a litigant who does not respect the Court's Rules and that there is no amount of cry of prejudice being occasioned to the Interested Parties nor the Applicant being heard on merit that should quench the thirst of the Court, which needs to stamp its authority. Counsel reiterated that this Matter be dismissed. 8.4 In response to the submissions, the Applicant's Counsel submitted, inter alia, that this Court should temper its wrath at the Applicant with mercy. Counsel sincerely apologised and stated that it was not the intention of the State, in any way, to disregard the Court's Order. Counsel reiterated that it was an administrative challenge that was occasioned by the Registry. 8.5 Counsel submitted that when the State placed the advert in the Daily Mail on 26th and 27th November, 2024, in complying with the Court Order, the State was under the impression, albeit mistaken as they later learnt, that on the same date physical copies of the Notice had been served. 8.6 Counsel asserted that they did advertise in the Daily Newspaper on 26th and 27th November as stated above but that due to administrative challenges, the actual copies were not served on the Interested Parties until after a few days. Counsel submitted that be that as it may, there is R16 I P ag e Scanned with Ci} CamScanner· no material or irreparable prejudice that was occasioned to the Interested Parties as the Notice was advertised and that the Interested Parties were adequately aware of this Application as Counsel for the Interested Parties placed themselves on Record as far back as 14th May, 2024 and 17th May, 2024, respectively. 8. 7 Counsel submitted that there have been various correspondences and hearings in relation to this Matter. It was further submitted that the issue of Notice should not arise in this Matter because the Interested Parties have been fully aware of this Matter and the contents therein. Counsel directed the Court's attention to Article 118 (2) (e) of The Constitution of Zambia2 and submitted that the State has learnt its lesson. 8.8 Counsel urged this Court to dismiss this Application on the basis of the Notice, which Notice of the Application the Interested Parties were aware of, but to proceed to hear the Matter on its substantive merits in order to ensure that justice is done. 8.9 In Reply to the foregoing submissions, the Interested Parties' Counsel submitted that the ends of justice are met by obedience to Court Orders. In response to the Applicant's contention that the Interested Parties were aware of these proceedings as far as May, 2024, Counsel submitted that while the Court has on Record the fact that R17 IP age Scanned with Ci} CamScanner· the Interested Parties were aware of these Proceedings as far back as May, 2024, it still delivered a Ruling in November, 2024, which Ruling had specific directives to be followed by the Applicant. 8.10 Counsel submitted that the Applicant has failed to appreciate that the issues that are before Court are very serious and that the Interested Parties are being prejudiced by the continued delay occasioned by the lapses on the Applicant's part. It was submitted that this is a case in which this Court should exercise its authority to dismiss the Matter with costs. 8 .11 Counsel finally submitted that the Applicant will not be prejudiced by this Matter being dismissed as it is at liberty to rectify its faults by refiling the Application if it so wishes. 9. CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THE COURT 9. 1 We have considered the issues raised in the Interested Parties' Application, the Affidavit evidence of the Parties and Submissions by learned Counsel. We have also considered the Authorities cited, for which we are grateful to Counsel. 9.2 For ease of reference, the Order in the Ruling dated 15th November, 2024, which is the subject of this Application was couched as follows: - R18 IP a ge Scanned with Ci CamScanner- ,. "We Order the Applicant (DPP) to give Notice of the Application within the next 14 days to Chita Lodges, Sharon Gray Chimese and Hector Kaluba Chimese, and publish in the Gazette or daily newspaper of general circulation in Zambia, a notice of the Application." 9.3 The Interested Parties have alleged that the Applicant herein has failed to adhere to the Court's Order in the Ruling dated 15th November, 2024. It has been asserted that the Court process was to be served on the Interested Parties on or before the 29th November, 2024, but the Applicant failed to adhere to this directive. It has been further asserted that the Applicant failed to adhere to the Court's directive to publish a Notice of the Proceedings, when it instead published a Notice of Hearing. 9 .4 In response to the allegations, the Applicant has conceded that it did not completely adhere to the Court's Order and added that it was not the intention of the Applicant, in any way, to disregard the Court's Order. The Applicant cited administrative challenges as the reason for its lapse and asserted that when the Applicant placed the advert of the Notice of Proceedings in the Daily Mail on 26th and 27th November, 2024, it complied with the Order. 9.5 It was further asserted that the Applicant wa s under the mistaken impression that the physical copies of the Notice had been s erved on th e Interested Parties . The Applicant R19 f P age Scanned with Ci CamScanner- added that actual copies of the Originating Process were served a few days after the due date. 9 .6 The Applicant asserted that there is no material irreparable prejudice that would be occasioned to the Interested Parties as a result of its lapses as the Interested Parties were adequately aware of the Application as can be seen from previous correspondences with the Applicant which are dated as far back as 14th May, 2024. The Applicant, relying on Article 118 (2) (e) of The Constitution2 , contended that technical lapses should not override the primary objective of adjudicating matters on their merits, particularly where the opposing party has not suffered any irreparable prejudice. 9.7 In addressing the foregoing contentions, we shall begin by outlining the legal principles that have been laid with respect to the obedience of Court Orders in Zambia. 9 .8 In the case of Bank of Zambia v Al Shams Building Materials Company Limited, Jayesh Shah and Attorney General1, cited by the Interested Parties' Counsel, the Court of Appeal guided as follows on th e issue of adherence to Court Orders: - "In our jurisdiction, however, an Order of the Court must be obeyed whether perceived to be a nullity, illegal, void, irregular or for some similar reason until it has been vacated or set aside by the same Court or on appeal. ,, R20 IP ag e i Scanned with Ci CamScanner-! ------------·······---------· 9.9 Further, in the case of, National Breweries Plc v Chakana Investment Limited6 cited by the Interested Parties' Counsel, the Court of Appeal stated that: - "A party who wantonly disobeys the court directives cannot cry foul citing Article 118(2)(e) of the Constitution and expect to escape the consequences of non compliance." 9.10 Additionally, in the case of Henry M. Kapoko v The People+, the Constitutional Court of Zambia had occasion to interpret the provisions of Article 118 (2) (e) of The Constitution2 and held that: - "Article 118(2)(e) is not intended to do away with existing principles, laws and procedures even when the same constitute technicalities. It is intended to avoid a situation where a manifest injustice would be done by paying unjustifiable regard to a technicality ... " 9. 11 From the foregoing, it is clear that in Zambia, Court Orders must be obeyed and that the wanton disregard of Court Orders is highly frowned upon. It is also clear from the foregoing authority, that though the Constitution directs that undue regard should not be given to procedural technicalities, the rules of procedure should not be ignored. 9.12 On our analysis of the contentions and the evidence in Support of this Application, we note that though the R21 l P age Scanned with Ci CamScanner-! -------- ----·······---------· Applicant has asserted that it complied with the Order by advertising the Court process in the Daily Mail on 26th and 27th November, 2024, our perusal of the copies of the adverts exhibited, reveals that the Applicant advertised copies of Notices of Hearing scheduled for 25th February, 2025, and not the Notice of the Application as was directed in the forestated Ruling. This, in our view, did not comply with our Ruling and the Orders therein, and as such, the Applicant's contention that it did, lacks merit and is dismissed. 9 .13 We note furtl_:er, that the Applicant has contended that due to an administrative lapse, it failed to serve the Interested Parties with the Notice of Proceedings within the period directed in the Order. The Applicant has justified this lapse by stating that it served the Interested Parties a few days after the due date and that the Interested Parties have not been prejudiced by this lapse as they were aware of the said Proceedings. 9.14 In addressing the foregoing contention, we are of the view that the Applicant's failure to serve the Interested Parties with the Originating Process as directed in the subject Ruling, is a clear breach of a Court Order. If, indeed the Applicant suffered such an administrative lapse, the correct procedure that was supposed to be employed by the Applicant, as rightly pointed out by the Inter ested R221Pa ge Scanned with Ci CamSca nne r- Parties' Counsel, was to seek an Order for Leave to serve the Notice of Application out of time. 9.15 We wish to remind the Applicant that the Order in the subject Ruling was made in a bid to give the Applicant an opportunity to correct its initial lapse of failing to serve the Interested Parties with the Notice of the Application as required in The Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act3 . 9.16 In our view, this subsequent failure by the Applicant to serve the Interested Parties herein with the Notice of Application as directed, is a clear indication of the Applicant's lax attitude towards obeying the Court Order and to prosecute this matter timely. 9.17 We are further of the view that though the Applicant's lapse does not go to the substance of the matter, the Interested Parties herein have suffered a prejudice as the Applicant's subsequent failure to serve them with the Notice of Application and to Advertise the Notice of Application as required in The Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act3 makes these Proceedings irregular and any further Application for an Order to rectify the Proceedings, if any, would further prolong these Proceedings to the detriment of the Interested Parties. Additionally, the failure by the Applicant to advertise the Notice of Application as directed, may prejudice any other unkno\vn R23 IP ag e Scanned with ~ CamScanner· Interested Parties who may wish to lay a claim to the properties subject of the Application. 9.18 We note that the Interested Parties have alleged that the Applicant served them with photocopies of the Originating Summons instead of filing or making an Application for Leave to file Concurrent Originating Summons for the purposes of service. Order VIII, Rules l and 2 of The High Court Rules1, on which this contention is based provides as follows: - "Rule 1 The plaintiff in any action may, at any time of or at any time during twelve months after the issuing of the original writ of summons, issue one or more concurrent writ or writs, each concurrent writ to bear teste of the same day as the original writ, and to be marked with a seal bearing the word "concurrent" and the date of issuing the concurrent writ; and such seal shall be impressed upon the writ by the proper officer: Provided always that such concurrent writ or writs shall only be in force for the period during which the original writ in such action shall be in force." "Rule 2 concurrent originating summons may be issued in the same manner, mutatis mutandis, as a concurrent writ of summons." (Our emphas is) R24 IP a ge Scanned with Ci} CamScanner· ( 9.19 On our analysis of the foregoing and the Interested Parties' contention, we note and as rightly pointed out by the Applicant that the Interested Parties in this contention referred to an Originating Summons, which Originating Process was not used to commence this Action. 9.20 This Action was commenced by means of an Originating Notice of Motion and as such, the procedural law on which this contention is based does not apply in this instance. Accordingly, the Interested Parties' contention lacks merit and is dismissed. 10. CONCLUSION 10.1 The failure by the Applicant to serve the Interested Parties herein with the Notice of Application as was directed by the Court in the Ruling dated 15th November, 2024, is a clear indication of the Applicant's lax attitude towards obeying the Court Orders and to prosecute this matter timely. 10.2 The Applicant's failure to serve the Interested Parties mentioned herein with the Notice of the Proceedings and to publish in the Gazette or a daily newspaper of general circulation in Zambia, a Notice of Application, as required in The Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act3, makes these Proceedings irregular and any further Application for an Order to rectify the Proceedings, if any, would further R2S IP a ge Scanned with ~ CamScanner· prolong these Proceedings to the detriment of the Interested Parties. 10.3 Additionally, the failure by the Applicant to advertise a Notice of Application as was directed, may prejudice any other unknown Interested Parties who may wish to lay a claim to the properties subject of the Application. 10.4 Based on our findings above, we find that the Interested Parties' Application that this Application be dismissed has merit and accordingly, we Order that this Matter be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Interested Parties, to be truced in default of agreement. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED AT LUSAKA, ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. · ~o HIGH COURT JUDGE ~ A. MALATA-ONONUJU HIGH COURT JUDGE S. V. SILOKA HIGH COURT JUDGE R26 IP age Scanned with Ci CamScanner-