Kalandanya and Ors v The Attorney General and Ors (2022/HPEF/10) [2023] ZMHC 5 (21 April 2023)

Jl IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA AT THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES REGISTR 2022/HPEF/10 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: BETWEEN: SECTION 61 OF THE NAR OTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTAN ES ACT NO. 35 OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL THE DRUG F ENFORCEMENT COMMISS ON BWALYA CHITALU KALANDANYA KALANDANYA MUSIC PROMOTIONS NSOCHITA GENERAL CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS LIMITED AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STANBIC BANK ZAMBIA LIMITED ECOBANK ZAMBIA LIMITED 1 ST APPELLANT 2ND APPELLANT 3RD APPELLANT RESPONDENT ED 1 ST WITNESS ED 2ND WITNESS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICES E. L. MUSONA, P. K. YANGAILO AND K. MULIFE ON THE 16TH A D 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023. APPEARANCES: For the Appellants: Mr. Malisa Batakati and Mr. I. Messrs Mu a twa Le a l Practiti imbeye For the Respondent: 1. Mrs. K. Mundia, Acting De uty Chief State Advocate 2 . Ms. Gla dys K. Tembo, Senior Attorne General's Chambers t a te Advocate J2 JUDGMENT MULIFE K., J. DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT OF 'HE COURT. CASES REFERRED TO: 1. Attorney General and Another v Akash batwa Mbikusita Lewanika and Others (1994) S. J. (S. C). 2. Simumba v Anti-Corruption Commission ( P 637 of 2014) ZMHC. 3. The People v Austin Chisangu Liato, Appeal o . 291 of 20 14. 4. Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462. 5. Mwewa Murano v The People (2004) Z. R. 207 STATUTES REFERRED TO: 1. Constitution of the Republic of Zambia, Ch pter 1 of the Laws of Zambia. 2 . High Court Rules, High Court Act, Chapter 7 of the Laws of Zambia. J3 3. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substanc s Act Number 35 of 2021. 4. Prohibition and Prevention of Anti-Money L undering Act No. 14of2001. 5. Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This is a Judgement on the Appellants' otice of Appeal filed into Court on 9 th September, 2 22, pursuant to Section 61 of the Narcotic Drugs a d Psychotropic Substances Act No. 35 of 2021 (herein ter referred to as the 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ubstances Act'). The provision states as follows : "( 1) The Director-General y, where the Director-General has reasona le grounds to believe that a third party s holding any property, including money in a ank account for on or behalf of, or to the order if, a person who is under investigation, serve a n tice on the third party directing that the third party shall not dispose of, or otherwise deal wi h, any property specified in the notice without t e consent of the Director-General. J4 (2) A notice issued under subs ction (1) shall be served on the third party to wh m it is directed and on the person being investi (3) The Director-General ma , in issuing a notice under this section, impos conditions that the Director-General may deter (4) A notice issued under sub ection (1) shall have effect from the time of se ce on the person to whom it is addressed ands all continue in force for a period of nine cancelled by the Director-Gene l, whichever is ~ earlier, except that the Direc or-General may issue a fresh notice on the expir of the previous one for a further final term o six months to facilitate the conclusion of an i vestigation. (5) A third party on whom a otice is served under subsection (1) who dispo es of, or deals with, the property specified in t e notice without the consent of the Director-Gen ral commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (6) A third party on whom a otice is served under this section shall not otherwise deal with, the propert specified in the notice except in accordance wit the terms of the notice. JS (7) A person aggrieved with th directive of the Director-General issued under s bsection (1) may appeal to the High Court". 1.2 The Notice of Appeal was prompted b the Appellants' dissatisfaction with the decision or direc ive of the Director General of the Drug Enforcement Com ission (DEC), to restrict and/ or seize the Appellants following Bank Accounts: a. For BWALYA CHITALU KALANDANYA (Th 1s t Appellant) (i) 9130000289500 held with Stanb. c Bank Zambia Limited at his Mulungushi Branch i Lusaka. (ii) 9130001352842 held with Stanb·c Bank Zambia Limited at its Mulungushi Branch in Lusaka, Zambia. (iii) 0037503844501 held at Eco bank ambia Limited at its Lewanika Mall Branch. b. For KALANDANYA MUSIC PROMOTION (T e 2 nd Appellant) (i) 5615000009216 held with Ecobank ambia Limited at its Lewanika Mall Branch in Lusaka, Zambia. c. For SONCHITA GENERAL CONTRACTO S & SUPPLIERS LIMITED (The 3 rd Appellant) (i) 9130000186205 held with Stanbi Bank Zambia Limited at its Mulungushi Branch in Lusaka, Zambia J6 (ii) 5615000003383 held at Ecobank Z bia Limited at its Thabo Mbeki Branch (iii) 551500008813 held at Ecobank Z bia Limited at its Thabo Mbeki Branch. 1.3 The Notice of Appeal further contends t at the directive of the DEC to restrict and/ or to seize th mentioned Bank Accounts and the money therein, is or o herwise illegal as the DEC did not serve the Appellant with any such Restriction or Notices as required by the law. Further, that the Notices have expired. 1.4 The Notice of Appeal was heard on 16th d 30th January, 2023. 2.0 HEARING 2.1 On 12th December, 2022, the Appell ts' Summons to Compel Attendance of Witnesses a d Production of Documents was granted. The witn sses who were compelled to testify are AWl and AW3. 2.2 AWl testified first. She is Jinga Ka 1nga, a Head of Compliance at Eco Bank Zambia Limi ed. She told the Court that her duties include ensurin that Eco Bank's J7 employees and Board of Directors comp y with the laws of Zambia and the Bank's internal policie . She stated that the 1st and 2 nd Appellants maintain b k accounts with the Bank. That on 27th December, 20 1, the Bank was served with a Notice of Seizure by th DEC, relating to among other bank accounts, two of the bank accounts in issue. The witness identified and tender din evidence, the stated Notice of Seizure. It was mar ed exhibit Pl. It indicates that it is issued pursuant to th Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act o. 14 of 2001 of the Laws of Zambia (hereinafter re erred to as the 'Prohibition and Prevention of M ney Laundering Act'). With respect to the present matter it relates to bank account no. 5615000009216 belon ing to the 2 nd Appellant and bank account no. 5615000003383 b elonging to the 3 rd Appellant. 2. 3 There was no cross-examination. The ev · ence of A W2 was abandoned by the Appellants. As sue , it shall not be recited. AW3 was Olivia Mooya, an A Money Laundering Unit of the Compli ce Department at Stan Bic Bank Zambia Limited. She i armed the Court JS that her duties include receiving warra ts and notices of seizure served by law enforcement age cies. That on 27 th December, 2021, the Zambia Police an the DEC served on her, a Notice of Seizure and a W rant to Inspect Bankers' Books respectively. That the otice of Seizure is in tended to freeze bank accounts mai tained by the 1s t and 3 rd Appellants. That once frozen, t e account holder cannot access the account. Further, w ile funds can be deposited, they cannot be withdrawn om the account. She stated that she cannot tell if the ccounts in issue received deposits from the time they we e frozen. 2 .4 AW3 identified and tendered in evide ce, the Notice of Seizure and Warrant to Inspect Banker 'Books, in issue. They were marked exhibits P2 and P3, respectively. Exhibit P2 indicates that it is issued pursuant to the Prohibition and Prevention of Money aundering Act. It relates to bank account no. and 9130001352842 belonging to the 1s t Ap ellant. Exhibit P3 relates to bank account no. 913000018 205 belonging to the 3 rd Appellant. J9 2.5 A W3 stated that the amounts of oney that were restricted on exhibit P2 are as follows: 139, 350.44, K54, 627.34 and US $5, 036.80, relating to 9130000289500, 91133000186205 an 9130001352842 respectively. 2 .6 There was no cross-examination. A 4 was the first Appellant. He stated as follows: tha the 2 nd and 3rd Appellants are his companies and the ank Accounts in issue belong to the Appellants; that n 27 th December, 2021, as he wanted to draw salarie for workers, he discovered that the subject restrictions ere placed on the bank accounts in issue on grounds that there were investigations being carried out; that t date, he has not been questioned by law n t agencies 1n connection with the bank accounts in i sue. 2.7 AW4 stated that the Appellants had with the National Road Fund and National Airpo ts which remitted funds into the accounts in issue; that th restrictions have caused them hardships in terms o paying workers' salaries so that from a workforce of 1 0 , there are now JlO only 10 workers remaining. And, that th y are also unable to pay for licenses. 2. 8 AW 4 prayed for an Order of this C urt allowing the Appellants to access the bank accounts ·n issue. 2. 9 Under cross-examination by Ms. Tembo AW 4 stated that he has been questioned by the DEC but not in connection with the bank accounts in issue and th the DEC did not expressly inform him that they were no questioning him in connection with the subject bank ace unts. 2.10 During re-examination, AW4 stated th t the DEC asked him about contracts which the Appellan shad gotten and the Appellants submitted the names oft e contracts. 2.11 This marked the close of the Appe lants' case. The Respondent did not call a witness. Par ies informed the Court that they would rely on the evide ce on record and head of arguments 3.0. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 3.1. The Appellants filed final submissi ns into Court on 6 th February, 2023 in which their gal Counsel first outlined events leading to the Noti e of Appeal. This is as averred in the Notice of ppeal and AW4 . Jll Counsel also recited the tes · monies of the Appellants' witnesses on record. 3.2. Counsel submitted that the App llants instituted this action pursuant to the N cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1n unintentional mistaken belief that the bank acco nts in issue were restricted pursuant to the provisi ns of the stated Act. That this mistake was triggere by failure by the Respondent and the Banks at whic the accounts are maintained, to avail the App lants with the do cum en ts pursuant to which t e accounts were frozen, after attempts by the Appell nts to obtain the documents. That after having een availed the documents through the Cour process, the Appellants are now aware that the ccounts in issue were seized pursuant to Sect on 15 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Anti-Money Laundering Act No. 14 of 2001 (h reinafter referred to as the 'Prohibition and Pre ention of Anti Money Laundering Act'). The pr vision states as follows: J12 "An authorised officer sha l seize property which that officer has rea onable grounds to believe that the prope or acquired from money laun 3.3. It was submitted that according the Appellants' witnesses, the effect of the Respo dent placing the Notices of Seizure (exhibits Pl and 2) onto the bank accounts in issue, is to freeze or restrict the withdrawal of money from the ac aunts. That as it may, Counsel argued that the re triction does not apply to money that is deposited · nto the accounts after the placement of the Notices o Seizure. Rather, it only affects the money that is n ed on the Notices of Seizure or property that was i existence at the time of the Notices of Seizure This, Counsel submitted, 1s because, Secti n 15 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Anti-Money Laundering Act, pursuant to whic the Notices were placed, envisages existing and d ete minable property at the time the Notice was placed and not property acquired in the future or prop rty that is not specified in the Notice. That ther fore, exhibits P l J13 and P2 should only affect money t at was deposited into the bank accounts in issue afte their placement. 3.4. Counsel further submitted that t e stated Section 15 of Prohibition and Preventio of Anti-Money Laundering Act, does not empowe the officers of the DEC to freeze a bank account as a ank account does not amount to property of the a count holder for purposes of seizure. Rather, that t e provision only empowers authorised officers seize already acquired, determined and describe property. 3.5. Next, the Appellants argued that ev n assuming that the seized property existed and fell within the definition provided for under se tion 2 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Anti-Money ... Laundering Act, the impugned a ions of the DEC freezing the Appellants' bank ac unts should be found to be illegal because DEC has not demonstrated to the Court, 'the rea onable belief', as prescribed by Section 15 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Anti-Money Laund ring Act, which triggered the placement of the im ugned Notices of J14 Seizure. That the DEC needed to d monstrate to the Court, their belief that the Appel ants acquired or derived the money through money 1 undering as that would have justified the placemen of the impugned Notices of seizure. That their failu e to demonstrate such belief is fatal to the Notices o Seizure. 3.6. It was submitted that although th Prohibition and Prevention of Money Launderin Act does not expressly require service of the No ice of Seizure on the affected person, a purposive int rpretation of Part VI of the Act under which sectio 15 (pursuant to which the subject warrants of sei ure were issued) entails that a warrant of seizure ust be served on the affected party. That service f the warrant is necessary as it is the only basis upon which the affected person can be able to ch lenge the seizure or reclaim the seized property in lin with and within the timeframe stipulated by secti n 18 of the Act. That this position is supported by the warning directed to the affected party as xpressed on the warrant. In urging the Court to a opt a purposive J15 interpretation of the Prohibition d Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Counsel cit d the case of The Attorney General and Another Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika and Others ( 3.7. Based on the foregoing, Counsel that a warrant of seizure issued under t e Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ac does not have perpetual effect as suggested by Counsel for the Respondent. 3.8. In conclusion and ans1ng fro the foregoing, Counsel prayed for an Order of th· s Court allowing the Appellants access to all their oney held-up in the bank accounts in issue. That in the event the Court finds that the Notices of Se zure were legally issued, they should not relate to th money that was subsequently acquired and credite to the accounts. 3.9. These are the Appellants' written fi al Submissions. Final written submissions for the espondent were filed into Court on 14th Febru , 2023 in which Counsel conceded that Section 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substa ces Act r equires J16 service of a notice of seizure issue pursuant to that provision, to be served on a third p ty who is holding the seized property on behalf of e person under investigations and on the person b ing investigated. That however, the impugned N tices of Seizure (exhibits Pl and P2) were not issue pursuant to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Rather, they were issued pursuant o the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Launderi g Act particularly section 15 and that this provision does not require service of the notice of seizure on he person under investigation. 3.10. Further, that section 16 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Launde ing Act does not state the timeframe for which the notice of seizure issued pursuant to Section 15 of he Act, is valid. That therefore, the stated sections 15 and 16 of the Prohibition and Prevention of M ney Laundering Act defeats the Appellants' claims t at the Notices of Seizure in issue are illegal for not h ving been served on the Appellants and for having b en expired. J17 3.11. Counsel further urged this Co rt to dismiss the Appellants' argument that the DEC) acted without reasonable beli f that the money in issue was seized because it was cquired through money laundering. That this s because the Appellants have not proved assertion. In support of this argument, we fallowing holding of the Court ace rding to the case of Simumba v Anti-Corruption C "The Plaintiff has not addu ed any evidence to show that the Director General acted with malice when exercisi g the power to issue the restriction notic under section 24(1) of the 1966 Act. He ha also not shown that the exercise of the po er was done in bad faith. Further, the P aintiff has not demonstrated that the deci ion to issue the restriction notice in ord r to facilitate instigations against the Pl allegedly or suspected have been committed under the Act 1966 was not exercised for the public goo " 3.12. It was further submitted that his action was comm en ced using a wrong mode That since th e J18 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act pursuant to which the Notices o . . seizure in issue . were issued does not provide r the mode of commencement, the action sh been commenced by way of a writ of su mons pursuant to Order VI, Rule 1 of the High C urt Rules, High Court Act, Chapter 27 of the aws of Zambia (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hi h Court Rules') That in the result, the action shoul be dismissed on the basis of Order 14A of the Rule of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. 3.13. Counsel submitted that the ppellant's money which was credited to the bank ac ounts in issue is liable to seizure b ecause the DEC as interest in it. That if the Court were to order for he release of the subject money, it would be contrary to public interest because it would be tantamount to topping criminal investigations. 3.14. In conclusion and based o the fore going, Counsel urged us to dismiss the A peal. J19 3.15. The Appellants filed Submis ions in Reply on 20th February, 2023 in which t ey recited their earlier submissions save to add a follows: that the present matter is under the crimi the Court as guided by the Co rt in its Ruling delivered on 4 th November, 2022. T erefore, Order VI of the High Court Rules which th Respondent has submitted to have been the basis o the action, is not applicable as the provision only a plies in the civil jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the action cannot be dismissed on that basis. That in any case, the Respondent has not demonstrate any prejudice it will occasion if the matter is de ermined on the merits. 3.16. It was submitted that to the Respondent's submission, the bur en to prove that reasonable belief that the prope ty in issue was derived or acquired from money 1 undering within the meaning of section 15 of th Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, lies on the state and not the person under investig tions, which the J20 Respondent's agents have failed demonstrate in the present case. Counsel referre the Court to the following holding of the Supreme ourt of Zambia in the case of The People v Austin C isangu Liato (3): "it is obvious to us that it is the prosecution which must harbour the reaso able" suspicion and which must prove it". 3.17. That in the Simumba ca e cited by the Respondents, the Plaintiff alleged alice against him on the part of the Anti-Corruption Commission and it was for that reason that the ourt shifted the burden onto him to prove his alleg 3.18. Counsel recited the Appellant ' prayers. 4.0. CONSIDERATION AND DECISION 4.1. We have considered the Notice of Appeal, the oral evidence and written submissions for which we are indebted to Counsel for both parties. We shall henc forth outline our determination. 4 .2. It is not in dispute that the Notices of Se zure (exhibits Pl and P2) were placed on the Appellants' ank Accounts in issue, on 27 th December, 2021. Further once placed on J21 the Bank Accounts, the Appellants ha e been unable to withdraw money from the accounts. 4.3. It is also not in dispute that the stated otices of Seizure were not served on the Appellants and w re only availed to them through an Order of this Court whi h compelled AW 1 and AW3 to testify. In dispute and for determination by this Court are the following issues: (i) Who, between the Appellants an the Respondent has the onus to prove that the sei ed money in the Appellants' Bank Account in iss e is reasonably believed to have been from money laundering; (ii) Whether the Respondent needed to serve the Notices of Seizure in issue on the Appellan s; (iii) Whether or not the Notices of Seiz re in issue have perpetual effect; and (iv) Whether the Notices of Seizure have effect on property which is not mentioned th 4. 4. We shall handle the issue s seriatim. R garding the first issue in dispute, Section 15 of the rohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, ursuant to which J22 the impugned Notices of Seizure were · sued, is clear in terms of which party should harbour a reasonable belief that the property intended to be seiz d, is derived or acquired from money laundering. Our nderstanding of the provision is that it is the 'authorised officer' who must harbour the reasonable belief and not e person who is affected by the seizure. It also follows th tit is the person harbouring such belief who must prov the basis of its existence to the court. This interpreta ·on makes sense considering that it is such belief which le ds to the seizure of property. 4 .5. In any event, the Notices of Seizure in i taken out for purposes of facilitating inve tigations into an alleged crime of money laundering, pla proof (in the absence of a statutory rovision to the contrary), on the party that is alleging riminality in the manner the money in issue was acqu red. This is the settled principle of criminal law accordin to a plethora of celebrated cases such as Woolmingto v DPP (4) and Mwewa Murono v The People (5). The ase of Simumba v Anti-Corruption Commission cited b the Respondent, J23 re-states the same principle in the sens of requiring the party (Plaintiff) that alleged malice on th part of the Anti Corruption Commission, to prove its al egation. We have therefore found that the case has been c ted out of context in as far as the Respondent is seekin to rely on it to suggest that the burden of proof lies n the suspect or accused (the Appellant) instead of the pa ty that is alleging criminality, (the Respondent). 4.6. Turning to the present case, the party t at must harbour the belief and prove it to the Court, is the officer of the Respondent who placed the Notices of S izure in issue on the Appellants' Bank Accounts and no the Appellants. Therefore, it is a misdirection for the Res ondent to submit that the Appellants have the onus to pr ve that there are no reasonable grounds for the Respond nt to believe that the seized money was acquired or der ved from money laundering. Placing the burden of proof n the Appellants is to require them to prove their inno ence which is a violation of their fundamental due-pr cess right to be presumed innocent until proven guilt , as guaranteed under Article 18(2)(a) of the Constitut·on, Chapter 1 of J24 the Laws of Zambia (hereinafter re erred to as the 'Constitution'). 4. 7. As regards whether the Respondent has roved before this Court, the existence of its belief wh ch triggered the placement of the impugned Notices o Seizure on the Appellants' Bank Accounts, it is not in ispute that such evidence has not been availed as no wi ess or exhibit of any sought was tendered. It is for this reason that it is attempting to shift the burden of proof o to the Appellants. We thus find that the Respondent has ot discharged the burden placed on it by Section 15 ofth Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering ct. Under the circumstances, the impugned Notices o Seizure have no basis for which they can be sustaine . They therefore stand discharged. 4.8. Had it not been for the jurisprudential v ue of some of the remaining issues in dispute, we could have ended our Judgment here considering that the o erall question 1n this matter is whether or not the imp gned Notices of Seizure should b e discharged. We shall t us determine the next issue in dispute, namely, whether the Respondent J25 needed to serve the Notices of Seizure 1n issue on the Appellants. 4. 9. Parties have expressed opposing views on the one part, the Appellants contend that the Res ondent had an obligation to serve the Notices of Seizure n the Appellants while on the other part, the Respondent asserts that they are not under an obligation to serv . As highlighted already, the Notices of Seizure were is ued pursuant to Section 15 of the Prohibition and Pre ention of Money Laundering Act. The provision does n t state that the Notices of Seizure must be served on the party affected by the seizure, in this case, the Appell ts. However, a reading of the provision alongside other provisions of the same Act, disclose that the Responde t was under an obligation to serve the Notices of Seizure n the Appellants. Thus for example, Section 18 (1) (b) oft e Act, envisages representations from persons who are 1 the seized property. Logically, such a person can only make a representation ifs/he has been otified about the seizure. This view is supported by the warning that is expressed on the prescribed Form of the otice of Seizure. J26 The warning affirms the requirement of e Respondent to serve the Notice of Seizure on the par affected by the Seizure as this is the only mechanism y which s/he is notified of his right to make representati ns with a view to reclaim the seized property, should s/h desire to do so. For avoidance of doubt, the Notice state "you are warned that thes goods may be declared to be forfeited to he State under Section 17 of the Prohibition and prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 4 of 200 l ". 4.10. The view expressed above is further upported by the settled principle that a person canno be condemned unheard. Accepting the Respondent's s bmission entails condemning the Appellants without giving them an opportunity to be heard. In any eve t, ownership of property being a fun dam en tal right guar teed by Article 16(1) of the Constitution, cannot bet Appellants without giving them an o portunity to b e heard. 4.11. In the present case, as stated already, i is not in dispute that the impugned Notices of Seizure w r e not served on the Appellants. This renders them illegal and invalid. J27 4.12. The next issue in dispute is whether or ot the Notices of Seizure in issue have perpetual effe t. Whereas the Appellant contends that the Notices a period of validity, the Respondent contends that they have perpetual effect. Suffice to state that S ction 15 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Mone Laundering Act pursuant to which the Notice of Seizure s issued, is mute on this aspect. That as it may, guidance as been provided in other provisions of the Prohibition d Prevention of Money Laundering Act relating to the roperty that has been seized pursuant to Section 15 of he Act. Section 18(1) of the Act is particularly insightf 1 in the sense of permitting for representations from ersons who are lawfully entitled to the seized property a d the institution of proceedings relating to the seized prop rty or the person from whom the property is seized, to b months of the date of the seizure. By 1 gical implication therefore, a Notice of Seizure issued pu suant to Section 15 of the Act, has a validity period of s· months from the date it is placed on a property. J28 4.13. The principle applies to the impugned otices of Seizure. They stood valid for a period of six mont s with effect from 27 th December 2021 when they wer placed on the Appellant's Bank Accounts so that i the absence of representations by the Appellants or leg 1 actions against them or the property, by the Director-G neral of the DEC, the latter should have applied for f orf ei re of the money involved. In the present case, no further action was taken after the placement of the Notices o Seizure on the Appellants ' bank accounts in issue an this is a period well in excess of sixteen months. For this reason, the Notice s of Seizure remain invalid. 4.14 . The last issue in dispute is about the p operty envisaged by a Notices Seizure issued pursuant to ection 15 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Our under standing of the provision is tha t it envisages proceeds of the money laundering a t in is sue. The proceeds can b e in existence b eca use they have been harve sted or they can b e non-existent b e a use they are yet to b e harvested from the illegal a ct. J29 4.15. About whether or not the Appeal is prop rly before us, the Respondent has submitted that the p oceedings should have been brought by way of a Writ of S mmons pursuant to Order VI of the High Court Rules That having not been commenced by Writ of Summo s, the Appeal is improperly before this Court and shoul , on that basis be dismissed. 4.16. As guided in our Ruling delivered in t is matter on 4 th November, 2022, these proceedings are c iminal in nature. Therefore, in terms of procedure, they e guided by the Criminal Procedure Code as well as les provided for under applicable penal statutes an not the civil procedure rules, as suggested by the Res ondent. Further, we agree with the Respondent that the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act ursuant to which the impugned Notices of Seizure were issued, does not expressly provide for the procedure fo seeking redress against a seizure of property made pur uant to Section 15 of the Act, such as the one in i sue. However, a r eading of other provisions in the same A t and legislations of similar scope, suggest that recourse lies to the High J30 Court of which this Court is a Division. hus for example, Section 18(3)(4) of the Prohibition a d Prevention of Money Laundering Act enact that the Commissioner of the Respondent is empowered to refer to the High Court, a dispute involving a claim for property s ized pursuant to Section 15 of the same Act . The prese t matter, being a claim for property that was seized pursu t to Section 15 of the Prohibition and Prevention ofM ney Laundering Act, it can be logically inferred that the High Court is the appropriate forum. 4.17. Going forward, the Prohibition an Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not provi e for the mode of seeking redress in the High Court. Howe er, the mode can be inferred from legislation of simila scope such as Section 61(1)(7) of the Narcot c Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act which prescribe that a person who is aggrieved with a Restrict· on Notice issued by the Director-General of the DEC, can ppeal to the High Court for redress. Section 60(1)(5 of the Anti Corruption Act No. 3 of2012 has a sim lar result relating to a person who is aggrieved by a Restric ion Notice issued J31 by the Director-General of the Anti-Corruption Commission. It being a cannon of inte pretation that in construing a statute, reliance can be pla ed on statutes of similar scope, it can be presumed th t the legislature intended that recourse for a person who is aggrieved with a seizure of property under Section 15 o the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering ct, is possible by way of appeal to the High Court as simil rly prescribed by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S bstances Act as well as the Anti-Corruption Act. 5.0. CONCLUSION 5.1. In conclusion and based on the reason outlined above, we have found merit in the Appeal. We accordingly discharge the two Notices of Seizure th were placed on the Appellants' Bank Accounts by the Re pondent on 27th December, 2021. Thereby, the Appellant shall forthwith have access to their bank accounts in issue by way of withdrawing or depositing money therein J32 5.2 . Leave to appeal is granted. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED AT LUSA THIS 21 8 T DAY OF APRIL, 2023 E. L. MUSONA HIGH COURT JUDGE ~ P. K. YANGAILO K. MULi HIGH COURT JUDGE HIGH COUR JUDGE +