TEDWORTH Properties has asked the High Court to restrain the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) from disposing of its property following a Supreme Court judgment.
The company says it was not given a fair hearing.
Patrice Chiluba and Darlington Chiluba have petitioned on behalf of Tedworth, a company registered in Panama, an investment company of former President Frederick Chiluba.
The petitioners contend that the ACC had issued a notice to Tedworth Properties for the forfeiture of three of its properties worth over K40 million under the Corrupt Practices Regulations.
They argue that this was successfully appealed against in the High Court on grounds that notice was issued under the Corrupt Practices Regulations, which was illegal because the properties were not recovered as a result of corrupt offences.
The petitioners state that Dr Chiluba was not convicted of any offence under the law in Zambia in connection with the seized properties.
They have submitted that the forfeiture did not arise from any order of the court either under civil or criminal proceedings which resulted in a conviction.
“On appeal to the Supreme Court by the Anti-Corruption Commission, the appeal was allowed in a judgment handed down on 29 December, 2016 by a panel of three judges,” part of the petition reads.
It contends that the Supreme Court violated the principle of natural justice by allowing a judge who had not heard the parties to participate in making the decision.
The petitioners argue that they have a right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court.
They want the court to order that the forfeiture notice was null and void and that the properties be restored to the petitioners.
They also want a declaration that their right to protection from deprivation of property without adequate compensation was violated and that in the alternative the ACC pays compensation at the current market value of the property.
The petitioners also want a declaration that they were not given a fair hearing as one of the judges comprising the quorum that determined the appeal had not heard Tedworth Properties Limited.