Plan Of The Ventriglias To Take Over Zambezi Portland Fails, Sc Rejects Claims

The Supreme Court Zambia recently cleared the air on Zambezi Portland Cement and the newest claim made by the Ventriglias family. It is a known fact that case for Portland Cement Zambia is over. After peddling across two different courts, the final and transparent decision was given by the higher Court of Appeal. While Lusaka High Court was the first court where the case was registered, the decision from the Lusaka High Court judge was extremely controversial. In the transparent and ultimate decision from the higher Court of Appeal, justice Siavwapa announced that Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments is the majority shareholder and legal owner of the factory with 58 percent shares. This decision was given on 31^st January 2019. The Ventriglias have now appealed against this decision.

According to the claims made by Antonio Ventriglias & Manuela Ventriglia, justice Siavwapa on behalf of the higher Court of Appeal altered the decision from the Lusaka High Court by ordering that register comprising of Zambezi Portland Cement members must reflect that Ventriglias’ owned Ital Terrazzo Limited holds just 42 percent shares at the factory and are the minor shareholders without any legal ownership over the factory. Furthermore, the Ventriglias also claimed that the amount payable decided by the higher Court of Appeal judge was incorrect. While justice Siavwapa announced that the amount to be paid to the Ventriglias against the majority shareholding was K580,000, the Ventriglias claimed that this amount is actually K580,000.

While the Ventriglias did their best in trying to turn the tides towards their direction, it seems that they have failed miserably. The bench of three judges at the Supreme Court Zambia have effectively rejected this appeal. The SC judges said that the case goes against their legal purview since the law requires appeals to be made within 14 days of the court judgement. Furthermore, the evidences with the Ventriglias were not strong enough to make any changes to the already established decision from the higher Court of Appeal.