JUDGE MALUMANI ADJOURNS INJUNCTION HEARING TO NEXT WEEK
The Ndola High Court has adjourned the matter in which two non-FAZ members have sued the association for alleged breach of the constitution to next week.
Judge Greenwell Malumani said that he had decided to adjourn the matter on grounds that “there has been no service of the processes taken out by plaintiffs”.
Malumani said the plaintiffs had also applied for a joinder by another (intended party.
“There is also an application to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court by the plaintiffs. There are now three pending interlocutory motions as of today (Thursday),” reads the ruling in part.
“It is upon this background, that counsel for the parties have sought for the indulgency of this court (by consent) to adjourn the matter. From what is apparent, counsel for the parties have reasonable excuse not to proceed this morning. This explains why all moved by consent.”
The matter will now be heard on May 9, 2024 in the Ndola High Court.
On Saturday, Malumani declined to discharge the injunction brought before him by non-FAZ members Damiano Mutale and journalist Mabvuto Phiri.
The injunction caused the indefinite postponement of the FAZ annual general meeting that was due to take place on April 27 with delegates convening in Lusaka.
Meanwhile the FAZ lawyers have threatened to institute contempt proceedings against a foreign based blogger who misrepresented court proceedings through his online posts in the aftermath of the adjournment.
“We note with great concern a statement issued by a purported blogger circulating on various social media platforms, attempting to cloth the cause of the adjournment of the matter in which the court had granted an injunction against the Football Association of Zambia (FAZ) on the lawyers representing FAZ. The court has since delivered a ruling which reveals the true cause of the adjournment,” reads a letter from the legal team.
“The ruling cites that the plaintiffs, (Damiano Mutale and Mabvuto Phiri) are in fact the cause of the adjournment on account of their failure to serve the parties with court process.”
“Should any person continue to make statements that are directed to cause panic and undermine the adjudication of the matter, we shall have no choice but to cite him/her for contempt of court. We therefore urge that those found wanting do immediately, and without further delay, delete the contemptuous statements so published, and render due apology.”