Trident Packaging Limited v Gavi Beverages Limited and Ors (2024/HKC/64) [2025] ZMHC 110 (2 December 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2024/HKC/64 AT THE COMMERCIAL REGISTRY GAVI BEVERAGES LIMITED 1 ST RESPONDENT UMA MAHESWAR REDDY GAVI REDDY 2ND RESPONDENT SYAM SUNDER REDDY GAVI REDDY 3RD RESPONDENT MADHUSUDAN REDDY GA VI REDDY 4TH RESPONDENT VEDASTE NZEYIMANA SUBHASHINI REDDY GAVI REDDY 5TH RESPONDENT 6TH RESPONDENT Before the Hon. Mr. Justice E. Pengele in Chambers on 2 nd December, 2025. For the Petitioner: Mr. F. Chalenga of Messrs. Freddie and Company For the Provisional Liquidator: Mr. P . H . Yangailo with Ms. Mary Zulu of Messrs. P. H. Yangailo and Company For the 1st Respondent: Counsel for the Provisional Liquidator. For the 2 nd Respondent: Mr. M. Tembo of Messrs. Andrew For the 3 rd Respondent: N / A Musukwa and Company For the 4 th Respondent: Mr. Z. Sinkala of Messrs. Z. S . For the 5th Respondent: Mr. D. Jere of Messrs . Dickso n Legal Practitioners For the 6th Respondent: Mr. D. Mushenya of Me s srs . For the Affected Party: N/A Wright Chambers RUL I NG Legislation referred to: a . High Court Rules, Chapter 27 of the Laws of Zambia; and b. High Court (Amendment) Rules, Statutory Instrument No . 58 of 2020. I have taken time to carefully consider the application by the 2 nd Respondent for an adjournment of the hearing of the winding up petition to another day. I have also given due regard to the op positions by Coun sel for the Petitioner, the Provisional Liquidator and the 1st Respondent, the 4 th Respondent, the 5 th Respondent and the 6 th Respondent. Th e Rules of Court make provision for when a Judge may adjourn a hearing. In this regard, Order 33, rules 1 and 2 of the High Court Rulesa, as amended by the High Court (Amendme nt) Rulesb, provide as follows: -R2- "1. A Judge shall not grant an application fo r an adjournment except in c ompe lling and exceptio nal circumstances. 2 . A party intending to apply for adjournment o f a hearing shall, not less than t en days before the date set for hearing, file a notice o f t hat int ention". As rightly submitted by Counsel for the parties that are opposing the application, the 2 nd Respondent has not advanced any reason to justify its failure to file an affidavit in opposition to the winding up petition. As rightly argued, the 2 nd Respondent has been a party to these proceedings for over a year now. In addition to the foregoing, the date for today's hearing of the winding up petition was indicated in this Court's Ruling of 8 th October, 2025. The 2 nd Respondent has not stated why it did not file its affidavit in opposition even after having been given notice of the date of hearing of the winding up petition in the aforesaid Ruling. What the 2 nd Respondent did instead was to file an application on 27th November, 2025, for an order to set aside the petition and steps taken for irregularity, want of jurisdiction and abuse of court process. I hold the firm view that the 2 nd Respondent's aforesaid application is not a notice to adjourn the winding up petition. The notice -R3 - required by the Rules must state the reasons for asking for an adjournment. The Court may only adjourn if it finds that those reasons are exceptional and compelling. In any case, the 2 n d Respondent only filed the application to set aside the petition on 27th November, 2025, which was just two working days ago. I hold that the 2 nd Respondent's application cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of the Rules to give notice of adjournment at least 10 days before the date of hearing. As submitted by Counsel for the parties opposing the application for adjournment, this is a Commercial Court which has been created as a fast track court for commercial actions. Dilatory tendencies are not allowed in commercial matters. This winding up petition was filed on 6 th November, 2024. It has suffered serious delays occasioned by numerous applications. I do not think that I can allow any party to continue delaying the hearing of the winding up petition in the absence of exceptional and compelling reasons. I hold that no injustice would be occasioned to the 2 nd Respondent if I allowed the winding up petition to proceed because the 2 nd Respondent has had more than ample time to file its opposition. -R4- In the absence of any compelling and exceptional reasons for adjou rning th is winding up petition and the 2 nd Respondent having failed to file a n otice of adjournment at least 10 days before today, I hereby refuse to grant the 2nd Respondent's application for an adjou rnment. I order th at the petition for winding up will proceed today as scheduled . The costs shall be in the cause. Delivered at Kitwe this 2 nd day of December, 2025. ~ Commercial Divi~ion JUDICIARY OF Z,\MBlA I j& o 2 DEC 20257-~: ! HIGH COUR. T a.---- JUDGE-IN-CHARGE PO BOX 20135. KJTWE If --;;_T~i:;\;";;~-;;;-- HIGH COURT JUDGE -RS-