Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Ors [2007] EWHC 952 (Ch) (04 May 2007)

Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Ors [2007] EWHC 952 (Ch) (04 May 2007)

The court found that senior Zambian officials, in concert with London-based solicitors and others, conspired to misappropriate substantial sums from the Zambian government, that the funds could be traced through various accounts, and that the Defendants were liable for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt. The court held that English jurisdiction was proper due to the central role of London-based entities and accounts. Limitation defences failed due to concealment and the nature of the fraud.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 952 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia; First Defendant: Meer Care & Desai (a firm); Second Defendant: Cave Malik & Co; Third Defendant: Dr Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba; Fourth Defendant: Xavier Franklin Chungu; Fifth Defendant: Atan Shansonga; Sixth Defendant: Ms Stella Chibanda; Seventh Defendant: Aaron Chungu; Eighth Defendant: Bimal Thaker; Ninth Defendant: Faustin Kabwe; Tenth Defendant: Irene Kabwe; Eleventh Defendant: Francis Kaunda; Twelfth Defendant: Boutique Basile (Antonino Basile); Thirteenth Defendant: Nebraska Services Limited; Fourteenth Defendant: MISS Associates Limited; Fifteenth Defendant: Hearnville Estates Limited; Sixteenth Defendant: Jarban SA; Seventeenth Defendant: Raphael Soriano
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Recovery of Misappropriated Government Funds, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Limitation / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant on liability; quantum to be determined after further submissions on realisations and credits.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Limitation of Actions, Tracing of Assets, Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders
Civil Fraud Trusts and Equity Company Law International Law Conspiracy Breach of Fiduciary Duty Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia

Claimant

Meer Care & Desai (a firm)

First Defendant

Cave Malik & Co

Second Defendant

Dr Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba

Third Defendant

Xavier Franklin Chungu

Fourth Defendant

Atan Shansonga

Fifth Defendant

Ms Stella Chibanda

Sixth Defendant

Aaron Chungu

Seventh Defendant

Bimal Thaker

Eighth Defendant

Faustin Kabwe

Ninth Defendant

Irene Kabwe

Tenth Defendant

Francis Kaunda

Eleventh Defendant

Boutique Basile (Antonino Basile)

Twelfth Defendant

Nebraska Services Limited

Thirteenth Defendant

MISS Associates Limited

Fourteenth Defendant

Hearnville Estates Limited

Fifteenth Defendant

Jarban SA

Sixteenth Defendant

Raphael Soriano

Seventeenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Recovery of Misappropriated Government Funds, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Limitation / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants conspired to misappropriate Zambian government funds
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty by public officials and others
  3. 3 Whether London-based solicitors and others dishonestly assisted or knowingly received misappropriated funds

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that senior Zambian officials, in concert with London-based solicitors and others, conspired to misappropriate substantial sums from the Zambian government, that the funds could be traced through various accounts, and that the Defendants were liable for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt. The court held that English jurisdiction was proper due to the central role of London-based entities and accounts. Limitation defences failed due to concealment and the nature of the fraud.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant on liability; quantum to be determined after further submissions on realisations and credits.

Orders

  • Defendants found liable for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt.
  • Orders for recovery of misappropriated funds and assets, subject to further submissions on quantum.