Transparent Judgement Given By Court Of Appeal Judge, ZPC Ownership Given To Dr. Rajan Mahtani

On 31st January 2019, the final judgement on the Portland Cement Zambia case was announced. According to this judgement, Dr. Rajan Mahtani is the majority shareholder of the Portland Cement Zambia case with 58 percent shares. On the other hand, Ventriglias holds 42 percent shares and are the minority shareholders of the Zambezi Portland Cement. Based on this shareholding pattern, it is clear that Dr. Rajan Mahtani who owns the Finsbury Investments is the majority shareholder and legal owner of the Zambezi Portland Cement. This decision from the Court of Appeal judge came around nine months after the misdirected judgement from Lusaka High Court judge who announced that Ventriglias were only shareholders of the Zambezi Portland Cement. While giving the decision, Justice Mwinde from the Court of Appeal also said that the judge below him was wrong in declaring Ventriglias as the only shareholders of the Zambezi Portland Cement. The judge also revealed that this decision aligned with the original Shareholders Agreement which was established in the year 2007.

Portland Cement Zambia

Apart from the main judgement from the Court of Appeal judge, several new revelations were made. Justice Mwinde discarded all forgery related allegations by confirming that the process of mechanically establishing signatures on business documents was a common practice at the Zambezi Portland Cement. It was also found that Claudio Ventriglia who is a critical member of the Ventriglia family, engaged in similar practice by placing mechanical signatures on the employment contracts for a business transactions. As such, all forgery related allegations were discarded. Furthermore, a timeline of three months from the date of the judgement has been provided by the Court of Appeal judge. During this time, all share regulations and sales related activities must be completed.

After the final judgement on the Portland Cement Zambia case, many publications and reports wrote against the Court of Appeal judgement but faded quickly as these were not substantiated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *