MMD FACTION WANTS CHITIKA COURT APPLICATION DISMISSED

By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSAOPERATION Save MMD members have asked the Lusaka High Court to dismiss the application to raise preliminary issues by Ms Elizabeth Chitika where they are being accused of abusing the court process by re-litigating issues already pronounced. The 20 state that the notice of motion to raise preliminary issues lacks merit. In …

MMD FACTION WANTS CHITIKA COURT APPLICATION DISMISSED
By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSAOPERATION Save MMD members have asked the Lusaka High Court to dismiss the application to raise preliminary issues by Ms Elizabeth Chitika where they are being accused of abusing the court process by re-litigating issues already pronounced. The 20 state that the notice of motion to raise preliminary issues lacks merit. In this matter, Mr Geoffrey Mulenga and 19 others sued MMD president Dr Nevers Mumba, Ms Chitika as party national secretary and four others seeking a declaration that the extra ordinary convention held on March 20, this year was null and void and that they breached the party’s constitution. They also want the court to direct the Registrar of Societies to appoint an interim committee during the determination of the matter. However, Ms Chitika filed a notice of motion raising preliminary issues which include the court’s jurisdiction to determine the matter as the issues raised by the 20 in the writ of summon and statement of claim were the subject of another action under cause 2016/HP/0989. She also wondered whether it is right and proper for the plaintiffs to re-litigate issues that were already adjudicated upon under the said cause and are therefore res judicata. But Mr Mulenga, on behalf of the other 19 stated that it was the third time Ms Chitika and the other defendants were raising preliminary issues.He stated that there was also an application to stay proceedings as well as an appeal in the Court of Appeal. He insisted that the matter under cause no. 2016/HP/0989 in which Dr Mumba was declared president of MMD is different from the current case as it refers to the 2021 extra ordinary convention which was held on March 20, and not the 2016 convention. Mr Mulenga contended that the claims in the current matter are not similar to those in cause no.2016/HP/0989.