The plaintiff sought an eviction order for the defendants to be evicted from the area over which it held the gold processing licence, and that it be paid damages for loss of business as a result of the defendant’s failure to vacate the area.
The issue for determination was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the ownership and possession of those items as claimed.
Having heard the evidence before it, the court held that the sheriff did more than one execution on the same property, and sold real property purportedly using a writ of fieri facias which had been executed before and could not be renewed to allow for further execution. As such, the sale of the houses and block of flats was done contrary to the law.
The applicant pleaded that he was an innocent buyer and principles of contract law protected him to that effect. The court found that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff conducted any due diligence with regard to ascertaining who held title to the property, before it bought it. On that basis it could not be said that the plaintiff was a bonafide purchaser for value.
Further, that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of law to hold property in its name, as twenty five percent of its shareholding was not owned by a Zambian. Consequently, the plaintiff had no legal title to the same.
As a result, the claim failed with costs awarded to the defendants.
