Finsbury Investments Limited v Antonio Ventriglia and Anor (APP NO. 24/2021) [2025] ZMCA 131 (7 November 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBIA APP NO. 24/2021 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: FINSBURY INVESTMENTS LIMIT APPLICANT ,, ,.,,-- '•- AND ANTONIO VENTRIGLIA MANUELA VENTRIGLIA 0? (.___ . Nov;~ 1 sT RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT If ~ :, ;-- "11., ' '- ✓ , , '<. \ ' ·. 'Ji ' / .~ I ' " - · t 1 "'-.... · . I l . .'1.., • ?, .,. ... - / .. ~· CORAM: KONDOLO, NGULUBE AND BANDA-BOBO, JJA. On 2CJth August and 7th November, 2025. For the Applicant: Mr. J. Sangwa, Mr. S. Banda & Mr. C. Chongwe - Messrs. Simeza Sangwa & Associates Mr. S. P. Chilembo, Dr. A . Ngenda, Mr. N. Chibeleka Messrs. RASO Chambers Mr. Chakoleka & Mr. P. Chomba - Messrs. Mulenga Mundashi Legal Practitioners Mr. Nkunika - ZS Legal Practitioners For the Respondents: Mr. S. Sikota SC - Central Chambers Mr. A. Siwila & Mr. S. Mambwe - Messrs. Mambwe Siwila & Lisimba Advocates Mr. C. Sianondo - Messrs. Malambo & Co. RULING NGULUBE, JA delivered the Ruling of the Court. Cases referred to: 1. Bidvest Food Zambia Limited & 4 Others vs CAA Import & Export Limited -Appeal No. 56 of 2017 2. Hermanus Phillipus Steyn vs Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone - Civil Application No. 4 of 2012 Legislation referred to: 1. The Court of Appeal Act No. 7 of 2016 • 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The applicant has, pursuant to section 13 of the Court of Appeal Act, moved this court for leave to a ppeal to the Supreme Cou rt against the Ruling of this court t hat was delivered on 16th September, 2021. 1.2 The background to this motion is that on 31 st January, 201 9, this court delivered a Judgment in favour of the applicant in Appeal Number 117 of 20 18 . However, the applicant and the respond ent's Advocates disagreed on the embodiment of the Judgment of the Court into an order. On 21 st February, 20 19, the applicant moved the single Judge of this cou rt to settle the order emb odying the -R2- aforementioned Judgment of this court. On 29th March, 2019, the single Judge of this court delivered a Ruling and endorsed the order that was proposed by the applicant's Advocates as embodying the Judgment of the court. 1.3 The respondents were dissatisfied with the Ruling of the single Judge and alleged that the Judge had amended the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. The respondents' Advocates then filed two motions, the first being for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and the second motion was for stay of execution of the Judgment dated 31 st January, 2019. 1. 4 On 8 th April, 2019, this Court delivered a Ruling granting the respondents leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the 31 st January, 2019 Judgment and also stayed execution of the said Judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Supreme Court. 1.5 The respondents filed their notice of appeal but it was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28th October, 2020, for the reason that the appeal to the Supreme Court was incompetent for want of jurisdiction on the part of this court. -R3- 1.6 On 4th December, 2020, the respondents applied to the full court by Notice of Motion for an order of stay of execution of this court Ruling dated 29th March, 2019, pending the hearing of their application for leave to apply for extension of time within which to apply to reverse or discharge the decision of the single Judge, which order was granted ex-parte and inter-partes hearing date was scheduled for 11 th December, 2020. 1. 7 However on 10th December, 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to dismiss the respondent's application for want of jurisdiction on the part of this court. 1.8 This Court delivered a Ruling on 16th September, 2021 and dismissed the applicant's motion holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's applications. The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this court's Ruling dated 16th September, 2021 . 2.0 PROPOSED GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. 1 One proposed ground of appeal was couched, thus: "The Court of Appeal erred in law and/act by holding in its Ruling of 16th September, 2021, that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the respondents." -R4- 3.0 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION 3.1 The affidavit in support was deposed to by Jeffrey Chimankata, who deposed that he was counsel seized with conduct of the matter on behalf of the applicant. He deposed that the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Ruling of this court that was delivered on 16th September, 2021. 3 .2 It was deposed that the applicant had satisfied section 13 of the Court of Appeal Act as it raises the question of the nature and scope of the jurisdiction of the Court which, counsel deposed, was an issue of public importance . 4.0 AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT 4.1 The respondent's Advocates filed an affidavit in opposition to the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It was deposed to by Clavel Mb one Sianondo, Counsel seized with conduct of the matter on behalf of the respondents. 4 .2 It was deposed that the motion does not have the grounds upon which leave to appeal to the Supreme Court can be granted. It was deposed that the Motion is defective and that the proposed -RS- ground does not have prospects or likelihood of success nor does it raise any points of law of public importance to warrant the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It was further deposed that there are no compelling reasons for the court to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 4.3 According to Counsel, there are no special circumstances that would ' make the court grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 4.4 The applicant's Advocates filed arguments in support of the motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In opposing the motion, the respondents' Advocates also filed arguments in opposition to the motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We were urged to dismiss the motion as it had no likelihood of success, did not raise any points of law of public importance and did not proffer any compelling reasons to warrant the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 5.0 OUR ANALYSIS AND DECISION 5.1 We have considered the motion and the arguments by the parties. The issue is whether the applicant has satisfied the - R6- requirements of Section 13(3) of the Court of Appeal Act so as to warrant the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 5. 2 In the case of Bidvest Food Zambia Limited & 4 Others vs CAA Import & Export Limited, 1 the Supreme Court of Zambia referred to the Kenyan case of Hermanus Phillipus Steyn vs Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone2 where the Supreme Court of that country gave useful interpretation of the meaning to be assigned to the term 'a matter of general public importance' as follows: 1. The importance of the matter must be public in nature and must transcend the circumstances of the particular case so as to have a more general significance; 2. Where the matter involves a point of law, the applicant demonstrates that there is uncertainty as to the point of law and that it is for the common good that such law should be clarified so as to enable courts to administer that law, not only the case at hand, but other cases in the future; i. It is not enough to show that a difficult question of law arose, it must be an important question of law; -R7- ii. A question of general importance is a question which takes into account the wellbeing of a society in first proportion. 5.3 We are of the considered view that the intended appeal raises the important question of the nature and scope of this Court's jurisdiction after the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal on grounds of incompetence or want of jurisdiction. Specifically, it questions whether, in such circumstances, this Court is functus officio, or whether it retains jurisdiction to entertain subsequent interlocutory applications connected to the same matter. 5.4 This is a pure question of law with significant implications for appellate practice and procedure in this jurisdiction. It is therefore not only of interest to the parties but of public importance, as it will clarify how similar cases ought to proceed in the future . 5.5 Although the respondents argue that the appeal has no prospects of success, we are of the considered view that this matter transcends the circu mstances of this particu lar case and has a general significance. - RB- 5. 6 In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the application raises a point of law of public importance, and that there exists a compelling reason for the Supreme Court to pronounce itself on the matter. 6.0 CONCLUSION 6 . 1 In view of the foregoing, we find merit in the application and hereby grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our Ruling dated 16th September, 2021 . We order that each party bears its own costs. ::,. M . M. KONDOLO COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE P. C . M. NGULUBE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE A. M. BANDA-BOBO COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE - R9 -