Finance Bank Zambia Limited v Mipachima Farms Limited and Anor (2021/HP/0249) [2022] ZMHC 42 (18 November 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ~~tit~~ 2021/HP/0249 AT THE PRINCIPAL REGI$L!LR~ ' ' ~ -,~ .~8 , ; Prm-ir•:) .~~-- ~ ll~ , i 8 NOV 2022 -r~· ( ~ HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) IN THE MATTER OF: ' PlG l'.:{lk1 ..,./' ~·" t AJ O-......;, · · .n/,x30202-~~;$&~· ~ .. .,, :-~~- - AN APPLICATION TO ENFORCE A CHARGING ORDER ABSOLUTE DATED 3RD FEBRUARY, 2021, BY SALE OF STAND NO. L/ 18414/M AND STAND NO. L/ 19290/M. BETWEEN: FINANCE BANK ZAMBIA LIMITED APPLICANT AND MIPACHIMA FARMS LIMITED MAUREEN KAKUBO MWANAWASA 1 ST RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LADY JUSTICE P. K. YANGAILO, IN CHAMBERS, ON STH MAY AND 1 STH NOVEMBER, 2022. For the Applicant: M s. N. Alikipo - Messrs. Simeza Sangwa & A ssociates. For the Respondents: Mrs. I. Kunda, SC. - Messrs. George Kunda and Company; and Mrs. M. Zaloumis - Dove Chambers. JUDGlVIENT CASES REFERRED TO: 1. Chuuya ancl Another v Hankwenda (2002) Z. R. 11; and 2. Midland Bank Plc v Pike (1988) 2 ALL E. R. 434. LEGISLATION AND OTHER MATERIALS REFERRED TO: 1. The Rules of the Supreme Court, 1999 Edition, London Sweet & Maxwell; 2. Atkin 's Court Forms, 211d Edition, Volume 3, 1995 issue; and 3. Halsbwy's Laws of England, 411, Edition, Volume 17 (1) Re-issue. INTRODUCTION 1. 1 By Charging Order Absolute dated 3 rd February, 2 021 , the Applicant's Judgment Debt was secured with a Charging Order Absolute over the Respondents' properties , namely, Stand No. L/ 18414/M and Stand No. L/ 19290 /M ("Charged Properties"). The Applicant now seeks sale of the Charged Properties. This Judgrnent is therefore delivered, in respect of the Applicant's application. BACKGROUND 2 . l The genesis of the Applicant's application, as a scertained from the evidence on record, is that on 11 th June, 2019, the parties herein executed a Consent Judgment, which was entered in favour of the Applicant, in an action under Cause No. 2018/HP/1790, in the sums of K6,753,546.76 and K892,831.99 , plus accrued interest with costs. The Applicant then proceeded to make an application that the Respondents pay agreed costs, which order wa s granted on 4 th October, 2019. 2 .2 Subsequ ently, on 3rct February, 2021, a Charging Order Absolute was granted in the stated Cause Number ' wherein it was ordered that the said Charged Properties do stand charged with payment to the Applicant of the J2 I P 2 g e sums of K6,753,546.76 and K892,831.99, together with costs. 2.3 The above 1s the backdrop to this action by the Applicant, commenced by Originating Summons and made pursuant to Order SO, Rule 1 of The Rules of the Supreme Court1, in which the Applicant seeks, inter alia, an Order for delivery of vacant possession and sale of the Charged Properties. AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE 3 .1 The application is supported by an Affidavit and Further Affidavit, both deposed to by one Zelia Agness Mwale, the Recovery and Collections Manager in the employ of the Applicant herein. In the said Affidavit it is averred, inter alia, that at the date of instituting this action, there is still due to the Applicant and by virtue of the Charging Order Absolute, the sums of K6,753,546.79 and K892,831.99. It is further averred that the Applicant proposes to sell the Charged Properties, by way of advertisement to the highest bidder and where that fails by way of auction. It is also averred that the market value of the Charged Properties, according to the Valuation Report exhibited marked "ZAM 1" 1s K2, 100,000.00 for Stand No. L/ 19290 /M and K95,000.00 for Stand No. L/ 18414/M. 3.2 An Affidavit in Opposition was filed herein by the Respondents, which is deposed to by one Maureen J3 I P age (. Kakubo Mwanawasa, the 2 nd Respondent. The Deponent pointed out a number of irregularities that she noted in the Valuation Report and averred, inter alia, that the Valuation Report indicates conflicting dates as to when the valuation was conducted, which raises a question on the credibility of the report. It is further averred that the Applicant has failed to comply with the rules of Court in so far as the same requires it to set out the estimates of the gross price, which would be obtainable in the manner of the sale it has proposed and it has also failed to show the costs of such a sale. It is also averred that the Applicant has failed to obtain from the Lands Register an up-to-date copy of the Charged Properties as required by the rules of Court. Additionally, it is averred that an Order for sale of Charged Properties is not the only available method of enforcing the Charging Order as this Court can appoint a rec1ever. 3.3 In reply to the Affidavit in Opposition, the Applicant filed herein an Affidavit 1n Reply, deposed by one Nkhumbwizya Alikipo, an Advocate in the employ of Simeza Sangwa and Associates, who represent the Applicant herein. She averred, inter alia, that at the scheduled hearing of this matter on 8th July, 2021, the Respondents' Advocates applied for an adjournment to enable them engage a surveyor who would prepare a Valuation Report, to be placed before this Court as evidence, which application was granted, but to date the J4 I P age ( ( Respondents have not placed the said report b efore the Court as directed. SUBMISSIONS 4.1 The Applicant augmented its Affidavit evidence with Skeleton Arguments and List of Authorities, filed herein. In submission, learned Counsel for the Applicant made reference to Order 50, Rule 9A and Ord er 88, Rule SA of T h e R ules of the Supreme Court1, which provide for enforcement of Charging Order by sale and action for the enforcem ent of Charging Order by sale, respectively. Counsel contends that this Court has authority to make an Order for sale to enforce a Charging Order, upon a pplication by a party in accordance with the cited provision s of the law. 4 .2 Coun sel argued that the Applicant is at liberty to apply to this Court for an Order of sale of the Charged Propertie s a nd fortified her arguments by citing from the learn ed a uthors of Atkins Court Forms2, where it was stated as follows: - "A judgment creditor who has obtained a charging order on property of the judgment debtor may enforce it in the same courts and in the same manner as if it were an equitable cha rge created by the debtor under his hand. The normal method of enforcing such a is by order for sale, not charge (Counsel's emp hasis) foreclosure." JS I P age 4.3 Counsel further cited from the Halsbury's Laws of England3, where the learned authors stated that: - " ... the court may, upon a claim by a person who has obtained a charging order over an interest in property, order the sale of the property to enforce the charging order." (Counsel's emphasis) 4.4 Counsel also called in aid a number of cases to support her contention, among these being the case of Chuuya and Another v Hankwenda1 , in which it was stated that a charging order simply gives security and that an order for sale thereafter places the judgment creditor in the same position as a mortgagee; and the case of Midland Bank Plc v Pike2 , where the Court guided that the normal method of enf arcing an equitable charge under hand is by an application to the Court for an Order for sale or for the appointment of receiver. Counsel submitted that going by the above cited authorities, the Applicant herein who has a Charging Order Absolute is entitled to proceed to apply for an I \ Order for sale of the Charged Properties to enforce the said Charging Order against the Respondents herein, who are Judgment Debtors. Counsel urged the Court to grant the Orders sought. 4.5 The Respondents filed herein Skeleton Arguments, in which it is argued, inter alia, by learned Counsel for the Respondents that by neglecting to provide the estimates of the gross price which would be obtained on a sale JG I P:: g e ( ( based on the modes identified and an estimate of costs of such a sale, the Applicant has failed to meet the requirements of Order 88, Rule SA (2) of The Rules of the Supreme Courtl, which requires an Applicant to set out proposals as to the manner of sale of the property charged together with estimates of the gross price which would be obtained on a sale in that manner and of the costs of such a sale. 4.6 Counsel submitted that the Respondents do not dispute that this Court has authority to make an Order for sale to enforce a Charging Order, but have taken issue with the non-compliance of the rules of Court relating to such an application. Counsel further submitted that the Valuation Report that the Applicant has placed before this Court is lacking in many terms as averred in the Respondents' Affidavit in Opposition and cannot be relied upon by the Court as it does not meet the ends of justice in this case. 4. 7 It was also submitted that the Applicant has not submitted any evidence to enable the Court ascertain whether there is sufficient equity in the property to justify an immediate Order for sale. Counsel contends that there is need for a further account and inquiry into the documents presented before this Court or to engage a neutral valuer such as the Government Valuation Department. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the application with costs to the Respondents. J71 Page 4.8 In reply to the Respondents' submissions, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that a perusal of Order 88, Rule SA (2) of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 , reveals that the requirements are that there must be an estimate of the gross price which would be realised from the sale and the costs of the sale, which proposals and estimates should be supported by the exhibition of a report or letter from an estate agent. Counsel contends that the Applicant has met the requirements for evoking the said provision of the law as evidenced by the Valuation Report exhibited in its Further Affidavit. Counsel further contends that the Applicant proposed that the manner of the sale of the Charged Properties be throu gh private treaty, tender or by auction and that the costs of the sale are as stated on page 7 of the said Valuation Report. Counsel also submitted that the a ppoinment of a receiver merely exists as an alternative to the granting of an Order for sale in favourt of the Applicant. On the basis of the above, Counsel submits that the Respondents' arguments are therefore ( misleading THE HEARING 5.1 This m atter returned for hearing on several occassions ' where the Respondents requested for adjournments to enable the parties s ettle amicably. The Court gave the parties ample time on numerous occassions to settle amicably. On the last return date of hearing on 5th May, Js I rag e. ( ( 2022, the Respondents yet again requested for an adjourment to enable the parties conclude their discussions aimed at settling the matter amicably and the Court granted a final adjournment on condition that the necessary documents be filed herein on or before 22nd August, 2022, failure of which the Court would proceed to render its Judgment based on the documents on record, as the matter was now in backlog, having been commenced on 4 th March, 2021. The Court further directed the parties to file the necessary documents h erein should they wish to arrest the Judgment. At the time of writing this Judgment, none of the parties had filed h erein the necessary documents. I have therefore proceeded to render the Judgment herein. CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THE COURT 6. 1 I h ave considered the application together with all the Affid avits on record filed herein by the parties and the submis sions by learned Counsel, for which I am gra teful. 6.2 The facts of this case, are that the Applicant who has a Charging Order Absolute over the Charged Properties, seeks an Order for vacant possession and sale of the Charged Properties, which 1s opposed by the Respondents. Therefore, the main issue for determination, 1s whether the Applicant has met the threshold for grant of an Order for sale of the Charged Properties. In considering the application, I have to Jg I Pd g e ( address whether or not all the requirements for the grant for an Order for sale of Charged Properties have been placed before this Court, to justify the grant of an Order for sale of Charged Properties. 6.3 A claim to enforce a Charging Order is not a claim to enforce a Judgment but a claim to recover a sum due to the Claimant as a secured creditor. It does not satisfy the Judgment debt but provides security to the Judgment creditor in whole or in part over the assets such as landed property of the Judgment debtor. Where the Judgment debtor does not have ready cash to satisfy a Judgment debt for money, a Charging Order is a good m ethod of enforcement if the Judgment debtor has some a ssets of value. When a Charging Order is granted, it creates a security over the relevant assets of the Judgm en t debtor to the extent of the amount of the J udgm ent debt. The Judgment creditor will then be entitled to apply for an _order for sale of the charged a ssets a nd so release the sale proceeds to discharge the ( Judgm ent debt. 6.4 In casu, the Applicant obtained a Charging Order Absolute over the Charged Properties on 3rct February, 2021. To date, the Respondents have not discharged their obligations to pay to the Applicant the sums of K6,753,546.79 and K892,831.99, together with costs secured by Charging Order Absolute over the Charged Properties. J10 I r Jg e 6.5 In their submissions, the Respondents argue that the Order for sale of the Charged Properties should not be granted on the basis that the Applicant has not complied with the requirements of Order 88, Rule SA of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 and have taken issue with the Valuation Report placed before this Court by the Applicant. The Respondents have also taken issue with the description of the Charged Properties. Before I determine the substantive issue identified above, I will first address the description of the Charged Properties. 6.6 It h as been submitted by the Respondents that the Applicant, in its pleadings, made reference to a property known as Stand No. L/ 1842M, when there is no such property charged in the Charging Order Absolute, which is a clear breach of Order 88, Rule SA (a) of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 and has potential of misleading this Court. On the other hand, the Applicant submitted that reference of Stand No. L/ 1842M instead of L/ 18414/M as part of the heading on the Originating process and supporting documents is a typographical error as the Order for delivery of vacant possession and sale of the Charged Properties is in relation to Stand No. L/18414/M and Stand No. L/19290/M. 6.7 Order 88, Rule SA (a) of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 , cited by the Respondents, is non existence. What exists under the provision for the enforcement of JU I ra g e Charging Order by sale is Order 88, Rule SA (2) (a) of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 which is couched in the following manner: - "The affidavit in support of the originating summons must- (a) identify the charging order sought to be enforced and the subject matter of the charge." 6.8 As can be seen from the provision of the law, it is a mandatory requirement for the Applicant to identify the subject matter of the charge. The explanatory notes under Order 88/SA/2 of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 provide, inter alia, as follows: - " .. . Because the proceedings are a fresh action, the charging order being enforced will not be on the Court file and it should be lodged with, or exhibited to, the gffidavit in support. In the case of registered land up to-date office copy entries should be obtained from the Land Registry and exhibited." (Court's emphasis) 6 .9 The above provision entails that the Charging Order being enforced and a copy of entries on the Lands Register, where the Charging Order is in respect of registered land, be placed before the Court in the form of exhibits to the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons. A perusal of the record reveals that the Applicant has, in its Affidavit in Support, exhibited the Charging Order Absolute and entries on the Lands Register in respect of the Charged Properties. The properties Charged and shown on the entries on the J12 I P age Lands Register are Stand No. L/ 18414/M and Stand No. L/ 19290 /M. Accordingly, I am inclined to believe the Applicant that the reference to Stand No. L/ 18424 /M on some of the documents placed before the Court is merely a typographical error, which is not fatal to the application before this Court and can be rectified without prejudice to the Respondents. Further, this error has no potential of misleading the Court as this Court is alive to the requirements of the law and is satisfied with the exhibits placed before this Court that the properites in issue are clearly Stand No. L/ 18414/M and Stand No. L/ 19290 /M. Therefore, I find and hold that the application before this Court is in respect to Stand No. L/18414/M and Stand No. L/19290/M. Consequently, the Respondents' argument in this specific regard is without merit and is dismissed. 6.10 The Respondents also raised issue with the Valuation Report exhibited by the Applicant, which they allege is not credible . The Respondents pointed out a number of issues that they find wrong with the said Valuation Report, in particular, the estimated market values of the Charged Properties and the date that the valuation was conducted. They contend that the Applicant has failed to meet the requirements of Order 88, Rule SA (2) (e) of The Rules of the Supreme Court1, which is couched as follows: - "The affidavit in support of the originating summons must- Jl3 I P age (e) set out the plaintiffs proposals as to the manner of sale of the p roperty charged together with estimates of the gross price which would be obtained on a sale in that manner and of the costs of such a sale." (Court's emphasis) 6 .11 The explanatory notes elaborate the above prov1s1on under Order 88/ SA/2 of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 , as fallows: - "The purpose of r.5A is threefold. First, to enable the Court to judge whether there is sufficient equity in the property for the chargee to justify ordering a sale. Secondly, to ensure that if possible the Court will be in possession of sufficient evidence at the first appointment under the originating summons to make an immediate order for sale, without the need for further accounts or enquiries as to the defendant's interest in the property subfect to the charging order as to encumbrances or as to the amount of the sum due. Thirdly, to ensure that the rights of third party occupiers are protected. Because the proceedings are a fresh action, the charging order being enforced will not be on the Court file and it should be lodged with, or exhibited to, the affidavit in support. In the case of registered land up-to-date office copy entries should be obtained from the Land Registry and exhibited. Inquiries should be made of all known incumbrancers of the amount owing to them to enable para. (2)(d) to be complied with. It is the practice of mortgagees to provide such information to subsequent incumbrancers. The proposals and estimates required by para. (2)(e) should be supported J14 I P age by a report or letter from an estate agent which should be exhibited." (Court's emphasis) 6.12 As can be seen from the above explanatory notes, the Applicant is required to place before Court proposals and estimates of the manner of sale; price to be realised from the sale· and costs of the sale of the Charged Properties, which must be supported by a report or ' letter from an estate agent. The record will show that at the hearing held on 8 1h July, 2021, the Respondents sought an adjournment to enable them place their Valuation Report before this Court, which application was granted by the Court. The Court further directed the Respondents to file their documents herein within 20 days thereof, but the Respondents neglected and/ or failed to comply as directed. They thus slept on their right to place their Valuation Report before the Court. The record will also show that the Applicant has, at Clause 3 .2 , at page 7 of the attached Valuation Report exhibited in the Further Affidavit in Support, shown the mode of disposal of the Charged Properties. It has been proposed that the manner of sale would be through private treaty, tender and auction. It is also indicated the disposal costs that the owners should be mindful of ' which costs can only be determined at point of sale. Consequently, I find and hold that the Applicant has complied with Order 88, Rule SA (2) (e) of The Rules of the Supreme Court1. It follows, therefore, that the JlS I i~ Jg e issue raised by the Respondents, on this particular matter, has also no merit and is dismissed. 6.13 The Respondents further questioned the maner of preparation of the Valuation Report and alleged that the Report, which was obtained way before instructions were issued and lacks a comparison of comparable properties near to the Charged Properties is not credible. It is contended that the amounts indicated as market value would be true as at December, 2020, when the valuation was conducted and not true at the time the report was placed before Court in June, 2021. A perusal of the record reveals that the said Valuation Report was rendered to the Applicant on 4 th January, 2021, following a valuation conducted on 21 st December, 2020, which is two months prior to the commencement of this action. This action was commenced on 4th March, 2021. On 27th May, 2021, this Court granted the Applicant leave to file a Further Affidavit for purposes of exhibiting the Valuation Report. The Further Affidavit was filed herein on 15th June, 2021. Althought the provision of the law cited above does not give a time frame within which the Valuation Report is to be obtained, it is good practice that the most recent report be placed before Court in order for the Court to be in 'possession of sufficient evidence at the first appointment under the originating summons to make an immediate order for sale, without the need for further accounts or enquiries as to the defendant's interest in the J16 I P age property subject to the charging order as to encumbrances or as to the amount of the sum due}' as provided by law. In this regard, I find and hold that considering the time that it has taken to dispose of this matter, it would be in the interest of justice that a fresh Valuation Report is obtained by the Applicant, which will reflect the current market value. 6.14 This now bring me to the substantive issue of whether the Applicant has met the threshold for grant of an Order for sale of the Charged Properties. The Respondents argued that a Receiver should be appointed as opposed to granting the Applicant an Order for sale of the Charged Properties. To fortify their contention, the Respondents referred to Order 50, Rule 9A (19) of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 , which provides as follows: - "The remedy under an equitable charge under hand is sale (Tennant v. Trenchard (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. App., p.537) but the Court may also appoint a receiver. As to the procedure for obtaining an order for sale, see 0.88. In addition, the power of the High Court to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution has been extended so as to operate in relation to all legal estates and interests in land (A. J. A. 1956, s.36 (1). See also 0.51. The proceedings must be commenced in the Ch. D. (see S. C. A. 1981, s.61 (3)(b), Vol. 2, Section 20A); they J11 I P Jg e ( should be commenced by originating summons. See Atkin's Court Forms, Vol.19 (1), No. 141. It should be noted that proceedings under 0.88, r.5A are brought to enforce a charging order by sale of "the property charged". Thus, where, as is frequently the case, the beneficial interest of one of two or more co owners of land is charged, the sale, if ordered under that provision, will be of the beneficial interest only and may be of limited value to the creditor. But, as accepted by the Court of Appeal in Thames Guaranty Ltd v. Campbell [1985] Q. B. 210, at 239 per Slade L. J., and in First National Securities Ltd v. Hegerty [1985] Q. B. 850, and in Harman v. Glencross [1986] 1 All E. R. 545; [1986] Fam. 81, and applied in Midland Bankplc v. Pike [1988] 2 All E. R. 434, a person entitled to a charging order on the share of a co-owner in the proceeds of sale of land has a proprietary interest in that share and is a ''person interested" who is entitled to apply for an order for sale of the land pursuant to s. 30of the Law of Property Act 1925. It is under that provision that a charging order in such circumstances is usually enforced." (Court's emphasis) 6.15 The Respondents contend that the Applicant has not submitted any evidence to enable the Court ascertain whether there is sufficient equity in the Charged Properties to justify an immediate Order for sale. As can be seen from the above provision of the law, the appointment of a Receiver is merely an alternative to the grant of an Order for sale. It is not couched 1n mandatory terms and gives the Court discretion to Jl8 I P <1 g e \ \ .l I appoint a Receiver, which discretion may be exercised where there is an application for appointment of Receiver by way of equitable execution, which is not the case 1n casu. 6.16 It is my considered view that the appointment of a Receiver is not necessary at this stage of the proceedings as there is no such application before Court as previously observed above. It follows therefore that the Respondents' argument that a Receiver be appointed is also without merit and is dismissed. 6.17 This now brings me to the main issue for determination. I have addressed my mind to the principles that govern the exercise of the Court's discretion in enforcement of Charging Order by sale, as provided under Order 88 Rule SA (2) of The Rules of the Supreme Court!, as follows: - "The affidavit in support of the originating summons must - (a) identify the charging order sought to be enforced and the subject matter of the charge; (b) specify the amount in respect of which the charge was imposed and the balance outstanding at the date of the affidavit; (c) verify, so far as known, the debtor's title to the property charged; (d) identify any ;,rior incumbrancer on the property charged stating, so far as is known, the names J19 I Page \ t \ ) ,.( and addresses of the incumbrancers and the amounts owing to them; (e) set out the plaintiffs proposals as to the manner of sale of the property charged together with estimates of the gross price which would be obtained on a sale in that manner and of the costs of such a sale; and (f) where the property charged consists of land in respect of which the plaintiff claims delivery of possession - (i) give particulars of every person who to the best of the plaintiffs knowledge is in possession of the property charged or any part of it; and (ii) state, in the case of a dwelling house, whether a land charge of Class F has been registered, or a notice or caution pursuant to section 2 (7) of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, or a notice pursuant to section 2 (8) of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 has been entered and, if so, on whose behalf, and whether he has served notice of the proceedings on the person on whose behalf the land charge is registered or the notice or caution entered." 6.18 I am guided by the above authority. Thus in deciding whether to make an Order for sale of the Charged Properties, this Court shall consider all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, any evidence before it as to the circumstances of the parties J20 I P age \ l ( and whether the purported valuation report obtained by the Applicant would be likely to be prejudicial to the Respondents under the circumstances of Charging Order Absolute. 6.19 The application was brought pursuant to Order SO Rule 9A of The Rules of the Supreme Court1 , which provides as follows: - "(1) Proceedings for the enforcement of a charging order by sale of the property charged must be begun by originating summons issued out of Chancery Chambers or out of one of the Chancery District Registries. (2) The provisions of Order 88 shall apply to all such proceedings." 6 . 20 The above provisions of the law confers a discretion on the Court to make an Order of sale of the Charged Properties, where the requirements have been met by th e Applicant. In casu, a perusal of the Affidavits in Support of the application reveals that the Applicant has identified the Charging Order and the Charged Properties sought to be sold. It has stated the amounts in respect of which the Charge was imposed and the amounts due at the date of issue of the claim. It has further verified the Respondents' title to the Charged Properties and placed before the Court entries on the Lands Register in respect to the Charged Properties, which show that there are no other creditors who have a prior charge or other security over the Charged J21 I P ag e Properties. The Applicant has also given an estimate of the price which would be obtained on sale of the property as seen from the Valuation Report exhibited in the Further Affidavit in Support. Accordingly, the Applicant has met all the requirements of the above provisions of the law, to justify the grant of an Order of sale of the Charged Properties, save to state that the Valuation Report does not reflect the current market value of the Charged Properties as so much time has passed since this matter was launched. ( CONCLUSION 7. 1 For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that there is a proper basis for granting the Orders sought by the Applicant. 7 .2 Accordingly, I hereby grant an Order for vacant possession of the Charged Properties to the Applicant. 7 .3 The Applicant shall engage the Government Valuation Department, who shall conduct a valuation of the ( Charged Properties within sixty days from the date of this Judgment. 7.4 I furt her Order th a t th e Charging Order Absolute be enforced by sale of the Charged Properties at the current m arket value as will be a scertained by the Government Valuation Department referred to in paragraph 7 .3 a bove. The sale will b e conducted by way of a dvertisem ent to the highest bidder and the price will b e J22 I Page determined on the basis of the Valuation Report to be issued by the Government Valuation Department. The money realised from such sale shall be applied towards settlement of the sum of K6,753,546.79 and K892,831.99, less what has been paid to date by the Respondents to the Applicant, if any, and costs incidental to the sale of the Charged Properties. 7 .5 The 2nd Respondent shall deliver the original Certificates of Title in respect of the Charged Properties to the Applicant forthwith and sign all Deeds and documents to give full effect of this Judgment, failing which the Registrar of the High Court shall sign all the necessary documents for the vesting of the Charged Properties in the purchasers thereof. 7 .6 Costs of this application are for the Applicant, to be taxed in default of agreement and payable out of the proceeds of sale of the Charged Properties. 7.7 Leave to Appeal is granted. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED AT LUSAKA, ON 18TH NOVEMBER, 2022. u~)l/~cwb P. K. YANhAILO HIGH COURT JUDGE J23 IP age