The Court of Appeal announced its final decision on 31st January 2019. In this announcement, the judge from the Court of Appeal was justice Mwinde. According to the judgement, Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments is majority shareholder of the Zambezi Portland Cement with 58 percent shares. On the other hand, Ventriglias owned Ital Terrazzo Limited holds just 42 percent shares at the factory and is minority shareholder of the Zambezi Portland Cement. Based on this shareholding pattern, Dr. Rajan Mahtani are the majority shareholder and legal owner of the Zambezi Portland Cement factory. This decision from the Court of Appeal also aligned with the original Shareholders Agreement established in the year 2007. By giving this decision, the judge from Court of Appeal effectively reversed the judgement from Lusaka High Court. During this judgement, the Court of Appeal judge also said that the decision from Lusaka High Court judge was misdirected.
All forgery related allegations were discarded by the judge and it was announced that mechanically placing signatures for business transactions is a common practice in Zambezi Portland Cement. It was also found that critical member of the Ventriglias family, Claudio Ventriglia, engaged in similar service. As such, the judge from the Court of Appeal discarded all forgery related allegations.
Furthermore, several reports and publications were shared after the news of the Court of Appeal’s judgement was announced. These publications were allegedly by those discarding the Court of Appeal’s judgement and making different assumptions. However, these publications were found to be inconsistent and were later redacted.
All forgery related allegations were discarded by the judge and it was announced that mechanically placing signatures for business transactions is a common practice in Zambezi Portland Cement. It was also found that critical member of the Ventriglias family, Claudio Ventriglia, engaged in similar service. As such, the judge from the Court of Appeal discarded all forgery related allegations.
Furthermore, several reports and publications were shared after the news of the Court of Appeal’s judgement was announced. These publications were allegedly by those discarding the Court of Appeal’s judgement and making different assumptions. However, these publications were found to be inconsistent and were later redacted.