Africa-Press – Zambia. He borrowed K350,000 from the Chinese owned lender called New Future Financial Company Limited. He was made to surrender title deeds of his Meanwood Ibex property as collateral and signed off the assignment and contract of sale of his house to the lender. Shortly after he defaulted on the loan, he discovered that the ownership of his house had changed to another Chinese Company called China Hua Group Zambia Investments Company Limited. Armed with that data, he launched an application in the High Court.
The borrower argued that he was not aware of the sale of the house but that he was in fact prepared to pay back the loan in installments as he had already made some payments. This case was filed in the General List Division of the High Court and it was allocated to Judge Ruth Chibbabbuka.
On the other hand, in Court, the lender argued that the borrower knew what he was doing when he signed the two documents – contract of sale of the house and assignment – and therefore cannot “renege on his commitments”. The Chinese argued that there was no illegality or fraud on the part of the lender and therefore the borrower should honour the obligations.
After hearing the two parties, Judge Chibbabbuka agreed with the Chinese lenders in this case based on the evidence adduced in Court. “There is nothing to show that the applicant did not sign the contract of sale and assignment freely and voluntarily or that he was tricked into signing the same,” the Judge ruled.
“Had the applicant pleaded fraud, mistake or misrepresentation this court may have had occasion to dissect and interpret the contract of sale in the context of the actual situation…,” Judge Chibbabbuka said.
This latest case is in contrast with the earlier one decided by Judge Edward Musona in which he ruled that the owner of the house was tricked into signing the documents. Interestingly, the Chinese owned company in this case is the same one in the Judge Musona case. Simply, you have to show in court that the documents that one signed were illegal, or fraudulent, or indeed misrepresentation was used.
So the Chinese company is sitting with two conflicting positions on its books! I hope these matters can reach the Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court so that there can be certainty in such cases. For now, both High Court judgments are binding on the parties involved.
You see, High Court Judges are at par – same level – even though the two judgements come from two different High Court Divisions, namely Commercial List Division and General List Division.
Interestingly, both Judges discusses the famous Supreme Court Judgment in Kalusha Bwalya V Chardore Properties Limited in which the footballer lost his house in similar fashion. The beauty of the law! For more details; read the case of Stephen Muyunde Sakala v New Future Financial Company Limited and Another- 2019/HP/1515
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
