Intelligent Mobility Solutions Limited and Anor v Lamise Trading Limited (Suing in his capacity as shareholder of Intelligent Mobility Solutions Limited) (CAZ/08/568/2024) [2025] ZMCA 56 (1 April 2025)

.. : •:; ~?· · r \ · • . ... _, ... r . ~ ·-~..:../r_\ ;• • ~. ···~ (S'u ir:g ;_·;t ds cu.1.:nci1y u:s s!1n re hol::le r a_( f!ti":.. 1f!i~f:~ ?1.! !V{:i/J i!it y ~So/1;_l/01:_.')· J~i;r1it:'?cl) . -..:. ' - \/ For i h.e respond en t ll/kP. Chomua u.1 ith Mr. F C !1.i:sunlw both o_( F\,Z(;::;srs J}Ii1 lerLffC. L . IVfLlrr clcL s hi L.eycL{ J.-11·cl cti t:ic:; 1,::-11-.-..; J.~,Ls. [Vcr1ri1.uif cA ·- .111/iu ilc.!. Corpus ],ego) Practition ers ~!}-,- J r•f·il ::, ·•J-, . . ' . ' . \.,· , ... e::, ce l.1j s.-1ess1 s . ..., / ,C ,, . . , UCL , I [()/.._., , -fil l.' , , - oncl Linyama legal p ractitioners :.,,uitF-r ~,j ;· _ f< . l({i ·t.uct.il.o . bc)ih. oj "' · ·, T··[· , · , . CL C, ::i l [,, , : ~ -i/1· ,.. -, 7. Em n1cui.u el 1\tfwamba (suing i n his capacity as Director a nd shareholcler of F!.aphir.lirn Niining S upplies and Technica l Se rui ces Lirniied) u. Co s mas Te mbo, ·~- ·11· -,, 1' 1cc 1:-:; <..,nan a an ,1'?0?3 '---' hp p en. 1 o . 4 OJ~ ~ . ..,__ap ,1,1cun iv1Lmng - C'AZ ' 1 ·1· di") ;;r · . [ \T d 1 ( ) 2 . Chrispin 0al<..:o. ancl Chi.kwntso Phiri, Elliot Internationo. L Lim ited ancl Another v. Anne Va lerie Patricia Willci e - App eal No . J 53 of 202 1 3 . Smith v. Cos-worth Properties Limited (1997) 4 All ER 840 4. Anuj Ku.mar Rathi Kri.shma v. The Pe ople - SCZ Judgment No. 19 of 20 11 5 ZCCM In.vestme nts Holdings PL C v. First Qucmlwn Minerals a nd Others - CAZ Appeal No. 92 of 2020 j\;Jpande Nchimunya v. Stephen Hibwcmi 1\!Iichelo (199 7) S'. J. (SC) 6. 7. Scwencla Nlanagement v. Stcmb ic Banlc Zambia Limited - Selected Judgment No. 10 of2018 {App eal No. 37/20 1 7) 8. Musoncla Mutale v. 'African Banking C01poration Limite cl - SCZ/ 08/ 05/2020 2 . 7)1,e C~nl~~ .-: ·t oj' ,.i.\J)/JC:.\ ~:-f r--:·u /c'-;., ~5 . '(/u.:; l'{o _ (5,5 c:,/" ~-:?. (] l (). /?-L//f;.c; (~/- the ,(-;'U/);"(~nu--: ( ~:OUi -{ L~( !_!..:ri:,/lUJl/l 196·.s· - (1 s; rJ<;)_j [l:c. Jition. 1~_~i[ r1)£:'[(.~r:J i.r1.'":tru.n i.e.n.t Alc7 iib it ti l. l rencwe ct U1.e1r app11cat1ons ler ' . • .. J . ·t , ... • ]\II\va11a1Jo of t.l1c: n 1 i111.os -- - l -..l. ..... b cl eFv-=-red by\' Justice \ _,, ..1.. .l ~ - L. Court 'I'l.,e reri::.-vverl 8T..,D 11·'-,,q1inns ,;1-,re•-p. ,. ( _...._ ,.___,_ -...,- J. .... -. _ • f.-' .!. .l '-" .!. _.. - .l - - • . J.. - 1:11adp se,1Jarately on 5 th. V .1. -... - 1.2 On 27 th January 2025, by consent of the parties, the applications were consolidated. C onsequen · 1y, CAZ/08/484/2024 and t , CAZ/ 08 / 568 /2024 sha ll be dealt with together under CAZ/08/568/24. 2.0 1 sr APPLICAl\JT?S AF.i:"iDAVIT Kl T SUPPORT 2.1 Th e 1 st applicant's affidavit in support of the application was sworn by James Shawa Kankondo one of the directors of the con1.pany. It was filed on 5 th December 2024. -R2- . ,! . ' ' \ . S Ll "tTliTl CJT"J. S fo r Th(' :.-, n r; '11' ca· ,...,L .lj ·f·j· 11· e'C1t 1· 1L··c: ()10 0\'1 S' l. t' i u·-·;-. u·1 Oiyl -L' i-,.l, pn ··L·- ,__. ;) 'i'1' pl h /", 1 ; o--, ·1· c:; . L· r)_Q'Jt..-,. . . - _., ........ i:- j_- . ~ l _, ~ ,_., .._,, - ..... ,_, ,._, - I l \ • .., £.-, _r \ _ - . .... L. J ~ J.. . . - . --· b I..,, ) . ~1 n c1 t'··]-1e co·11r·t a1el1've1-prl 1··,'· cc r ·,·,]1' 1·10-s 01-.. },,ot"'J 0 n',1' i n,,f ;nn <:: t _ ci...1:-"' _l---' _,.\.....,cl .... J_.___, . 1. v i. . '--''-" ,__, \ ..__, ~v .. ... .... __ \ .... ~ _.._ . J. . 1.. .1. _ 0 ,·;r7 12 1h .,__ ___ i.... on the d e rivative action the Court in paragraph 6.8 state d lhat the a pplicant did not file any documents in opposition to both app lications . 2 .5 Subsequently, on 21 st August 2024, the a pplic a n t n1ade an ex- parte application for review of the ruling to conunence a derivative action. On 27 th August 2024 , the ~Judge agree d to review the ruling on derivative action. However, he reasoned th at the opposition docun1ents raised essentially the same argurnent -R3 - C !JU_rt 2.8 Furthe r, on 9 th Sep ternb e:::1· 2 024, the applicant m a d e an 2 . 9 That follcnving the n.. J.hng on 3 0 th Septen1ber 2024; the Board of Directors of the a DDlicant h eld a meetinba at which it resolved to . L J. engage Me ssrs . l\!Iulen.ga Iviundashi Legal Practitioners to represent the c1..pplican l. Copie s of the minutes of the n1eeting and Board Resolutions are both exh ibited as •JSK8. ' 2.1 0 That follov-1ing the re s olution, the applicant obtained leave of th e Court of Appeal to rene·w its application for leave to appeal against the ruling on revievv . The sa1ne was granted ex-parte by a single Judge na:mdy Sharpe - Phiri on 26 th Nove111ber 2024. The ex-p arte order is exhibited as ' JSK9 .' -R.4- / \ i_ tc, 1·r1e· \l fr cJ1n 3 . 2 That on 5 th ,July 2024) the 2, td applicant fi.l ed doc1. J1T1.ents opposing the respondents' applica tion for leave to con1.mence a d e rivative action. I'hat the de rivative action is for inter a lia an 2 ilege d bre acb of fiduciary cl1...1 tie s and fo r con.sequential loss of capit al invcst1nents returns. 3 . 3 In short, the affidavit gave the background of the 1natter sin1ilar to the one given by the 1 sl applicant . . Additionally, that the 2 nd applicant is dissatisfied with the ruling wbich granted the respondent leave to con11nence a derivative action and the review -R.5- th e t o w h e n appellant th.at the tery·1n.i n a.tion of the Cancess-ion Agreetn,:en t. (the s ubjec t n1.atter of the derivative otctian} Wei s do n e t hrough a. Settlement J.!.igreer:11.ent between. the 2 nd R espondent and the Governrrient of the Repub lfr:: of Z ar~bia Oill a no-fault basis. -R6- ,-; :~ <~· .!.. • :,. -. ~ J: .. _;. .; ; . , J.2 t_;h ··)ncl r~1 1 st -"-- credible clairns and the prosl ects of s·u.ccess s ubje ct to to i :, e by the 5 . The court b e low erre d i.n law and fact wh.er;,_ 'it did nor: conszaer r. e issue • 1 , • h against the derivative action that the cos ts of the -P7- of a 1J1Jeal raise irnronrt,::n1t ci1tH~stions of law and fac(: v,bich the . ' ~ C (?Urt O t ppea1 ought rn con s tcler an . Ctcterrn1ne. i . , " - . . d l r A ') c::; 0,-..., Tb.al for instance, the ir:Lte nd{c; d appeal wil] give the. cour t a ch ance to clarjfy on. the approach to be taken by a tria l court in d etern1ining an application fo r leave to comrnence a derivative Act , 20 l '7 which is a nevr piece of legisla tion that is still being interpr eted b y the Courts . FurLher, the court will have occasion to consider vvh e ther exarninjng the prospects of success of an inte nded application for leave t o cornmence a derivative action prirna facie would amount lo an examination of rnerits of the -R8 - vvc:rc~ conscJliclatect. 'J~l1 eir ccJ11 Le11.t0 t rr f~ si1-r1l.la.r u t1 C:l th.e Vi/'-L"'•' ••nt1·1:g t 1,e ar;::ir,t of l 0 a-v-e' JL.0 a➔)'_ Jea1 for i-1'7 L' fc, lln,,v-J·rp- ,-,:-.,:,,·-,~1-,s· . LvCt.\. J \. J . .1. , .. _ \..... . .l\...- .....v c . _ . c ... _ .,_ < .l .... c ..... ../ b . J . . 1. J. ... \ • _ J. -l . • J_ '- - c.1 l 0 In the Review Ruling) the lower cou rt acknowledged the adn:;j nis trative I 1apse that the respondent's docurnents opposing the application were not on the Court record. The court then proceeded to cm7.sicler the 2 nd respon ent's c oct.unents opposing -1e app.1cat10n . d 1 • • . l tl T ' ~ h e Court inte r a lia took into account the t vlo stage process in a derivative action as elucidated by the Court of Appeal in t e case o · Er.amarn1e1 IVnva:rill.lO)a ,s11:tng :r,rn hrn capacity as h f • ~ • 1l.. I • • . - - -R9 - l.j _J ·4.5 r efus i.n.g to grant lea ve to appe al. He fu r ther s tate d that t h e Cou rt of Appe a l ba0 o.lre a dy offered s ignificant cla rity on de riva tive a c tion s a nd in particul,ir ¾',e _,do n 331 of t:h e C o r.a.panies ·· "'ct rl.1 l' i 11 ·y ' -'- - 1=, • 1. E mrnanuel J\.;Jwcunba (suing in his cCLpacity a.s Director ancl S upplies and Tech nical S ervice s Limitecl) u. Cos m as Ternbo) Fidelis Chancla ancl R aphiclim. 11/l in ing) CAZ ilppea.l No. 40 of 2023. 2. Chrispin Daku a nd Chilcumtso Phirt Elliot Intemational Limited and A n.othe r v. Anne Val?rie PatriciCL Wilkie Appe_al flo. 153 of 202 1 -RlO- , ' not . Dee n aem.onstratecl chat -_1.e proposen grouna.s 01 appe8. r1ave r ., ' 1 - . , - .. t·1 .-,l rc;'" ''-'listi~ pr-osp ° C'L._ Ori S 1 'l('CC SS ~-1'1.p c ,11so , -Jpnj pc;_: 1-J,a1- -i-1-10 \....1."-.,,, ~--.'--'~-' Ll.._..i.., .... J. l.-:..- L. \...., '-"' 1..1... \...., L.(.. 1..---. U ,. ....,. " 1- , c.. _. lo~\-,;re,- 'Y J. court took into account the 2 nd applicant's afficla1.rit in opposition to the application for le ave to co·mn1.ence a derivative action wben it granted leave . The d eponent states that tb.e 2ud applicant was denied the right to be heard. 5.2 Further, the intended appeal is not prernised on the ground that the Court of Appeal has not offered clarity on derivative actions, the c riteria for leave to appeal fron1. a High Court decision is not -Rll- 6.1 6. 2 The 1st applicant further argued tha t according to the case of 01pp 1canr nas no reatz.s ,J,,ic prospec- s oJ s1..-wceeaH1g on ~· .;.• t .,,. ,, . l . . •; the appeal. This test is not rrneant to .be differentJrorn that which is sometfrn.es used which is that the apvlicant has no ar·!Cf1.. Wible case.'' ~ - a -R.12 - l1-1rLl1c:.r SLtl1rnlLtecl L1-J_2lt tl1{.! ' --l1J1etner ' I 6 . ~-=; Co u nsel proceeded t o den1onstra te prospects of success and the c:c1.se of "~:r.ruj C'J'71. 1)'-~11~n o· a-rO'L11·--ds fo1- tl-. e C"o·u 1·1- 1- o hea'- thr"> \_.. L1.-b b .l \., L .t. _L V' .t _1. I... .. _.._ J. 1. , , '- ·•11.+r=-nde· d cip-"'ueal ... .....,. _ _ . .. Cl. . L.l .l . .l . Companies Act" states that: , . . P.:..~:! ~ .. : a ccordance with thod; suhsect-lon have rega rd ta (aj the likeli hoDd of the proceedings succeedl.ng." 6 .6 He submitted that the above provision entails that if the court de tern1ines that the intended derivative a ction h as no likelihood -R13 - 1.-ueecl OL!.t 1-.t111ueri tc,rio-i1.s cL11.d 6.8 l:he p rinc iple of corporate existence of a company. In light of this principle, h e contended that Douglas actions a llegedly agrieve cl lhe 1-ec::1"o n c1e"n1- \..; .1.-' - _._ J.. l - J was acting as an agent of the S h areholders a nd in particular the 2 nd r espondent as Directors are agents of the co111pany the_y act for. He ·vvas acting a s an agent of t he re spondent d espite having b een non1inated by the board of the applicant by Kapsb Trafficcom AG . 6 . 9 He furthe r argu e d that by law, the respondent herein could cmnrne nce an action against a director that is purported to have co1nn1itte d a wrong against the company but not by way of a -R.14- derivative action. 6 . 11 The 2 nd applicant's subn1issions filed on. 9 th October 20'.24, are sirnilar to the 1st applicanl's subrnissions . Ms. Nan1wila s ubn1.itted that the intended grounds of appeal all have rcaso nabk prospect of success and raise import questions of la,.v Vv'bich ought to be detennined by the Court. Sbe subn1ittecl at. length in a n enclour to demonstrate that the proposed grounds of appeal are likely to succeed . I will not recapitulate those subn1.issions save that I have looked at them. The gist of her -R15- Ll1c1-t t.l1.e 2ru ! rtppncmn ' '. ·; 1. . VJhefher the.re iuos o. hkelih.ood uF tl-1.e deiit)atitJe crctiorL j ? 7'ho ~ris-i·L~ c, t'.'iho c.-1\-::; ,·i·,,1 11:1 .•a ,~11··-fio···L 7z'tre 1·1-, 1 4l·o be J-,1·r:•,·11 · c1n,·1 ...... A, - - . J , . .1 . . , •. C.,. L..,\..), _ l, J - o. Jt:::1..., , ......... ~ . / ,..._,,, / 1. L- .... L:::)1. J t-, \. ..... ... ·::J . .... , i - J . 6.13 That the lovver co 1...:1 r t 0111itte d to consider the issue of costs. 6 . 14 Thal on the iss u e of rnuJ.tiplicity of actions, the lower court did not address the applicmit's specific subn1issions about cause nu1nber 2021 / HPC / 073 6 vvhich the respondent had previously corrune n ced but disconti,.---nv~d. That the costs of that cause are yet to be settled by the 2 nd applicant and yet the respondent started a fresh case that is different in form. 6.15 Additionally, that the lmver court did not actively wrestle with the parties argu1nents in arriving at its decision. To support this submission, the case of Savenda Managen1.ent v. Stanbic Bank -R 16- , .. , ., c)t "the prospects of success of tb.e proposed appeal but h.ave frtiled to do c:n "-.· \... • • 'T'1',e1·ef'ore tl1.e 0 D 1J 1icat1"on o·L1 crl1.·1· i·o ·o·, ,-:,. C1ti•~·1T1is.c: ,.,r·i ,··v:i-11 rosts ,_,v._,,. V Cl.!. J ,l_ i...c,- .1.~ - - .- .l ,. J.. . ..._, . _,, L ...., , t. .... ..!._ • 7 .3 As for the question whether the re are any cornpeUing reasons why the proposed appeal should be heci.rd, h e subm itted that there are none . 7.4 He further stated that an appeal will only s lmv clo,vn the leave to appeal be de nied with costs to the respondent . th at -Rl 7 - . ~l. ) -~ ~L!.i '. Ll CllCJ l ') T CJS JtJ ti. C)\ .. \:s : ... ·• ~ if the n .r. ~1 a.ppeat have ., 8.2 G P DL C· 1 · ::..111, ; J... ...., - · - .. ) "---·....., rt~ a l-istic JJrosrJect s crf sL1.cc: ess . I f tl-1e cru_estior1 is or1c of g:e11.eral }Jrincinlc. d ecidecl fo r the firs t ti1r,e . or a c1uestion of jrnportance l. . ,/ . - upon vvhich furthe r a rgurn.e:-~nt and a decision of the Court of Appeal \Vould b e jn1portant to the public. 8 .3 The 2nd applica n t 's c uu_n se l contend ed that counsel for the respondent cited s e vera l cases that speak to leave to appec:1.l from , , cne Lourt or h. DD C3.l to the I , ,. \ • J . ~ C' ,.:,upre1ne ..._,our an t d erroneous y applied then1. to this rnatter. That in this r egard, the submissions are 11.1.isconceived. For exan1.ple the case of 11/Iusonda lVlu.tal e v . ~ ,,. 9 · 1-1n·1can iianJnng ....,ol"'!l] D:tatrton , 1s a upreme ourc ec1s10n on , . ,r, ~ - D .. _ a . C ' d .. the import of section 13 of the Court of Appeal Act, which -R18 - I-IS. ARING 9 . L • r sor bo!:11 applicants rciecl on aL tne c1ncu.n.7 ent s TLcci. iri. support • • . ·1 . -1 • . • J r• 1 . • . sanF· co 0 11--,se1 ~tai·ecl th,-. -c·- th,.:. Se l·t1e·n1e"n t . Au1-r:"' ,----111P·•11- ·,'J•=·c··\·up 0 1·., t'·he ·-½ .1 _ J_.....,,L _ 1..., ·'- \.b .....,.._, . J..lC~ __ ._ , .,l.., ...!..l \..., .._. J . L ..l. ....... .. L - - - Govern1nent of the Republic of Zarnbia and Intelligent Mobility cleariy sho\VS that the concession agreer.nent was terminated without in1puting liability to either party. It is frorn the san1e facLual matrix that the 1 s t responden t \V c:lS gr a nted leave to corn1nencc a derivative action. The respondent a irrrn is to irn.pute liability on the applicant in respect of actions done by its · directors. on this score alone leave to cornrn.ence a derivative action should not have been granted. -R19 - 9.3 In r epl}', c 01-1.11sd foe tbc 7s, applicant rep eated the initial a rgu 1Y1cnts on p r osp ects cf s ucces s uf the intend ed app eal. :.-:r /~ .l .l v fur ther stated that th e fac t t h a t the 2 nd a pplica nt rais c:cl issue s w h ic h were no t raised -, -l I J)T LJ7. e j . _!. 8t a pplica nt d oes n ot a ffect th e applica t ion by the l sl ap pe llan t for leave t o app eal. The 2 n d applic a n t as a shareholder of the 1st a pplicant has every right to 1-~-, 1=s '-' 8 ··1y 1· s<:!Ll:''• ; ,7 t·h ,- :- ' " ''P·'~Lr 1' LLiT .._ ....__. 1 1 ~ ,.,_ _._Gl L V(... l .._ u vl 1..l \..., .....,. .../ C . 9 .4 Learne d coun s el for the 2 nd a p p licant r elied on the affida vit, list of authorities a n d a r g u rn ents in r e ply filed on 22 n d J a nuary 20 2 5. 9 . 5 On th e issue raised by t h e r esp ondent about the r isk of a rguing the rn.erit s of the d e rivative a ction prematurely, he argued that se ction 331 (3 ) o f the Corn p anies Ac t 7 2 0 1 7 requires that the -:R.20- C [TC)rJ C OU S. --: r--.. l t_J. J "i r ! ... ' · - 'l' 1 V ,7 • C .---. ·1~ p -L· 1 ·111y,. ('nn ,;, "1(, aro r--, , . C ~ . "--' r ,.__, _ L-L ..,, ...., .... _u .._I,._.,_\..., ,..__ ·1 ,,, GL 1 1 'h -l·, r - . ... _.v ,-.-, ·, ... ~.--- ., t11c \r/ri i. Le1.1 ar1cl oral '1 ··1 lL-, ·~Lu·, r . Cc C:...l ... lC .. 8.rgu rnents 1n2de by counsel for aJl the 1J arties cc.1 11.ccrn_eCt. J. Th e application before n1e 1s for leave to app<::- a l against both the l'<uling dated 12 th Augu.st 2024 7 granting the r es pondent le ave to corn1nence a derivative action and the Ruling on revie1vv dated ')7 111 A 1 ·Lo·ust 2.0 05 <xrh1'c'n c.011.f'1'1·me,1 ,L'·he e r1r 1J,'°'l" ;-c,lin ,:_y c.,__J_ _\....., _,_ 1, .-. L- ~-o · \IV .1.. ,,,:__/ ..._ _ . .... L . - - . l.., b "'-' ~\ J 0 .2 In d e termining an application such as this , the c ourt is required to pre-view the prospect s of sv_ccess of the intended a ppeal and to consider ,.vhether there a re con1.p e lling res_sons w hy t h e appeal should be hea rd . See Srnith v. Cosli-vo:rcth, 3 Zaimbia Civil · Pr0ce«.tu:re Commenta:ry and Cases, O:rde:r 59 / 14 / l .... PSC and -R21 - CS. SC to be heard . 10 .4 Counsel for t he applicants rnacle lengthy argun1ents in an effort to convince the court Lb.at t he proposed grounds of appeal have reasona ble prosp ects of success and that there is a q1..-1estion of irnp ortar1ce upon \,vhich further argu1nent ancl a decision of the !-'0 11 r t or. f\·--.p, .... ,, 1 ... l _ 1. 1...1 l...lJ. .......... \._,.,( ,\.. .l. Vy '1ro1 ,lc! ],--==- in thP i1,t 0 rest o ·c 'L·l1e· p 1 ·1Jl1·c . _)\,_,, _ J L...l. . __ ,.,,. . _.!_ _ ,..... .... • •. \,, _J 10. 5 The issue of p1..1blic in.1.portance which the applicants referred to is vvhether the lowe r court was right to grant leave to comn1ence a derivative action without considering the likelihood of the derivative action succeeding, the likelihood of the costs of the derivative action being high; the ]st applicant's documents -R22- c:r--1.:~.t.:. - ~.._;(J1 .t 1'1~3e .l 1-l.f[.1 S -, . ' ;[_~ -=~~. ;'3 ~2.: - t. i t CJ. (~ l.(J .;~~ T-l c~_\1:i ·n.g rectc1 the lo\.~. Ter co1Jrt}s r1-1lir1g gr an.t-i.i:1.~: lf:::Ct .... / e t.o r.~orr1r11 e11.c e de ri\.r:1tjve I - " . have olJ-Sei·vcn a:n.d Othe:rs , supra and in the Ruling on review , tbe court cited said laws to the facts of tbe n1a tter. The court stated t h a t the a pplicant (now r e spondent) intends to com111ence a derivative ·L·1 CL' 1· () 1 ' r( 1·1- 'L·h e d ,c,. J-pr r,11·11af "t ' - • ...,,._,,.._ - J. J .l J. . . .._ . J '- . 0 ".tl o, f 1-1-, p ..._ _._ l V . ; s c:u.= ' IJ'1h (' 1-h C>J' t· h ,,. 1 SL c•:ip tJ 11' can·t .,., ---'-\....,. - - ~- V ..._: ..,_., J., J. l. -'- t. \ - s uffe red consequential losses as alleged, as a res ult of the 2 nd applicant's breach of its fiduciary dutie s towards the r e spondent. 10 . 7 The docurn.ents opposing the a pplication vvhich were not on the court record when the first ruling was 111.ade , were considered in the second ruling. -R23- . . J (J t ·1 "1,._l t .. l . ,::,f c -L .... f·l•1·s ,·,t,, u,=- J.. ~ \::>1... ctc_·. - :... J-r t .1 -L l- ,o L.1 .,.c to state that it is cle ar t.hat the lm,ver court had interrogated all the issues raised by the parties before concluding that the application had n1ct th.c threshold for the grant of an order for leave to con1rnence a derivative action. 10.11 Counsel for th e applic an ts is of the vie,N that this court needs to n1ake clarifications on the in1port of section 331 (3) of the Companies Act, 2017. 1--Imvever, as rightly pointed out by the lower court and Mr. Chile she I as at the time of the ruling this court had already n1acle cle tern1inations on the said provisions. The cases in point being : -R24- I il1rtl1.er ft11.cJ 11. l ln conclusion, the threshold for the grant of lea,/c to appe al to the Court has not b een rnet. Leave to appeal is therefore denied with costs to the respondent to be taxed in defauit of agree1nent . . . . . . . . . . i1\.\:,; :,;-..-.-.-., .. ·-t~-.-,-. ..... •. c.:~. lVXAKUNGU COUR:T OF AP 0 Ei, ir, JUDG E -R25 -