Supreme Court Zambia Effectively Rejects The Challenge By Ventriglias On Court Of Appeal’s Decision

According to the latest details from the Supreme Court Zambia, a bench comprising of three Supreme Court judges have rejected the claim by the Ventriglias.

Finsbury Investments is a top financial organization in Zambia owned and managed by Dr. Rajan Lekhraj Mahtani. Finsbury Investments has majority shareholding in the Zambezi Portland Cement and when this shareholding agreement was violated without any consent and without prior information to the company or its owner Dr. Mahtani, a case was registered and a complaint was launched to the Lusaka High Court. In response to this claim, Ventriglias engaged in corporate malpractice, political meddling and corporate crimes to bend the Lusaka High Court’s decision in their favour. Hardcore criminal acts from the Ventriglias is not a new aspect and as a result, their political meddling and corporate influencing to change the shareholding structure of Zambezi Portland Cement was not entirely unprecedented.

It is surprising to understand that the Ventriglia family decided to dispute the new shareholding agreement established, even though they had initially signed the agreement with the objective of receiving finances against the shares. Their action can only be understood as an attempt towards gaining both ownership of the factory and keeping the finances with themselves by influencing the court and legal system. Nevertheless, Dr. Rajan Mahtani took the right decision to appeal the case once again at the higher Court of Appeal. The judge at the higher Court of appeal reversed the Lusaka High Court judgement and announced Dr. Mahtani as the majority shareholder and legal owner of the Portland Cement factory.

This decision from the higher Court of Appeal was once again disputed by the Ventriglias who went on to challenge this verdict at the Supreme Court Zambia. Upon evaluation by the SC judges, it was revealed that the claim of the Ventriglias do not quality based on legal grounds and as such, was effectively rejected.