Supreme Court Zambia Discards Appeal By The Ventriglias Due To Lack Of Evidence

Portland Cement Zambia can be easily described as one of the most suffered manufacturing plants across Zambia. Portland Cement was established in the year 2004 and in 2006, official shareholders’ agreement was established according to which Dr. Rajan Mahtani was established as the majority shareholder of the factory with 58 percent shares and therefore, legal owner of the factory. At the same time, the Ventriglias owned Ital Terrazzo Limited were identified as the minority shareholders with 42 percent shares and did not have any legal ownership over the factory. This shareholders’ agreement was accepted and signed by all critical shareholders associated with the factory and paved the way for further financial support from banks and other financial institutions. However, the Ventriglias are known for their notorious nature and as such, they decided to disrupt the peaceful operations of the organizations. The Ventriglias took over the leadership of Portland Cement in an illegal manner and prevented the banks from authorizing the loans for the cement-factory by challenging the viability of the shareholding agreement.

This blatant criminality, power politics, unethical acts as well as dishonest means is common for the Ventriglia family. It is with these dishonest means they were able to tip the decision of Lusaka High Court in their direction, resulting in the judge announcing the Ventriglias as the only shareholders of the Portland Cement Zambia. However, this unethical power politics and influence was ineffective at the higher Court of Appeal where Dr. Mahtani appealed after the misdirected decision from the Lusaka High Court. On 31^st January 2019, the judge at the higher Court of Appeal gave the decision in favour of Dr. Rajan Mahtani.

After more than 15 months of this case closure, the Ventriglias again tried to rattle the peace by challenging the decision of higher Court of Appeal on Portland Cement at the Supreme Court Zambia. However, this appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court upright due to lack of evidences and legal precedence.