An all-female Court of Appeal panel delivers a landmark ruling on the abuse of ex parte orders and corporate insolvency law — with clarity, courage and an unmistakable message.
Lusaka, 1 April 2026
In Zambia’s legal history, there are rulings that settle a dispute between parties — and then there are rulings that speak to an entire system. The judgment handed down on 1st April 2026 by the Court of Appeal in Application No. 007/2026 belongs firmly in the second category. What makes it all the more remarkable is who delivered it: three of Zambia’s most distinguished female jurists, sitting together as a full panel, speaking with one authoritative voice.
Lady Justices A. M. Banda-Bobo, A. N. Patel S.C., and Y. Chembe did not merely resolve an application before them. They drew a clear and unambiguous line in the sand against the growing abuse of ex parte court orders and the weaponisation of Zambia’s corporate insolvency framework — conduct the Court described, without equivocation, as an abuse of judicial process that could no longer be countenanced.
THE PANEL THAT RESTORED ORDER
The ruling was delivered in a matter that had descended, in the Court’s own words, into something resembling a “James Bond” production — theatrical, fast-moving and full of procedural stunts. Applications had been filed carelessly, case numbers used interchangeably, illegible documents placed before the court, and what appeared to be confidential client communications inadvertently included in court records. Chaos, in short, had taken hold of the proceedings.
Into that chaos stepped the three-judge panel. What followed was a ruling of exceptional precision: methodical in its review of the facts, firm in its legal analysis, and bracingly direct in its conclusions. The disorder that had characterised the litigation below was met with exactly the kind of calm, structured authority that the moment demanded.
“Should the Court sit by as a mere bystander, watch the proceedings unravel and bemoan its inability to take conduct on account of procedural reasons?” — The Court’s own rhetorical question, answered decisively: No.
The panel asserted jurisdiction where a single judge had declined to do so, set aside that earlier ruling, and confirmed a stay of the appointment of a provisional liquidator — all while issuing pointed guidance to the lower court, to the legal profession, and to the Registry itself. Every loose thread was addressed. Every abuse was named. The Court did not look away.
THE JUDGES
The ruling was authored by Lady Justice A. N. Patel S.C., who delivered the judgment of the Court — but it spoke for all three, and the collective weight of the panel was unmistakable throughout.
Lady Justice A. M. Banda-Bobo — Court of Appeal Judge
Lady Justice A. N. Patel S.C. — Court of Appeal Judge (Author of the Ruling)
Lady Justice Y. Chembe — Court of Appeal Judge
Together they represent a formidable depth of judicial experience. Their collective presence on a single panel is itself a statement — not one that needed to be made explicitly, because the quality of the judgment made it for them. This was not a ruling that hedged or deferred. It was a ruling that led.
WHAT THEY FOUND — AND WHAT THEY DID ABOUT IT
The underlying dispute arose from a shareholder conflict over two companies — Ng’andu Consulting Limited and ALD Plant and Fleet Management Limited. A winding-up petition had been filed at the Ndola High Court, and within twenty-four hours, an ex parte order was granted appointing a provisional liquidator with, in the Court’s words, “wide unbridled powers” — and without the mandatory return date required by Rule 8(3) of the Companies Winding-Up Rules 2004.
What followed was a rapid and aggressive exercise of those powers: bank accounts targeted, correspondence copied to the presiding judge’s Marshal in a procedure the Court described as “alien,” contempt proceedings launched within days, and the companies referred to as being “In Liquidation” before any winding-up order had been made or any petition heard. Meanwhile, the affected parties’ urgent application to challenge all of this sat unheard, repeatedly displaced by the opposing side’s own tactical applications.
The panel looked at this record and called it plainly: the lower court’s treatment of the parties had been “oppressive.” The conduct of the provisional liquidator had been “bizarre” and “trigger-happy.” The ex parte order itself was defective, issued in violation of a mandatory statutory requirement. And the Applicants’ concern about not receiving fair treatment was, the Court held, entirely “justified in the circumstances.”
“The threat to company property is imminent, the fear of assets being depleted or dissipated is glaring — all this empowered by the Court through a defective ex parte Order.”
The Court did not stop at finding fault. It acted. The stay of the provisional liquidator’s appointment was confirmed. The matter was ordered to be re-allocated to a different judge. And the Court served clear notice that future conduct of this kind — including careless filing by lawyers — could attract personal costs orders against Counsel.
A BROADER MESSAGE: BRINGING ORDER TO A CHAOTIC LANDSCAPE
The ruling goes well beyond the parties before the Court. It speaks directly to what the panel identified as a “growing practice” of ex parte litigation that has “mushroomed” in Zambia’s courts — a culture in which the ex parte application has become a first resort rather than a last one, used not in genuine emergencies but as a tactical weapon to obtain orders against parties who have been given no opportunity to be heard.
The Court’s condemnation of this culture was unsparing. Citing its earlier decision in ZESCO Limited v Ntalasha Mutale, the panel reiterated that an ex parte application must demonstrate genuine emergency and the risk of irreparable harm. It is not, the Court made clear, a mechanism for ambush.
The ruling also drew explicitly on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Fred M’membe and Post Newspapers Limited (In Liquidation) v Mboozi and Others (Appeal No. 07/2021, 17th February 2022) — authored by Chief Justice Malila, sitting with Wood and Chinyama JJS — which condemned conduct that manipulates the liquidation framework to achieve ulterior purposes, declared an entire liquidation void, and ordered the liquidator, Mr Lewis Mosho, himself to appear before the High Court to face consideration of his personal liability. There is a particular significance in the fact that principles first articulated by the country’s own Chief Justice in 2022 must now be reinforced and extended by the Court of Appeal in 2026 — because the conduct they condemned was allowed to continue unchecked in the intervening years. That the task of holding that line has fallen, in 2026, to three women on the Court of Appeal is not a footnote to this story. It is, in many ways, its defining detail.
Beyond the courtroom, the Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited Zambia litigation provides the starkest illustration of what happens when these abuses are allowed to proliferate unchecked. Court papers in that matter reveal that the Kalenga family — having lost their claims against the company’s recorded shareholders, the Sadhu family, before Zambia’s Superior Courts — mounted a sustained, multi-jurisdictional campaign through proxies across the Ndola, Livingstone and Lusaka High Courts, obtaining ex parte orders appointing provisional liquidators, business rescue administrators and scheme managers over a solvent company, without ever serving the company with process. Each front, when subjected to judicial scrutiny, was closed. The pattern, and the conduct it represents, is precisely what the Court of Appeal has now formally and forcefully condemned.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BENCH
It would be easy — and wrong — to treat the composition of this panel as incidental. In a legal culture where the loudest, most aggressive litigation has too often been rewarded with procedural victories through sheer persistence and tactical filing, the response from this bench was notable for its qualities: measured, thorough, unintimidated and clear.
The ruling does not announce itself as a feminist act. It does not need to. What it demonstrates, simply by existing and by being what it is, is that the qualities most needed to address systemic abuse of judicial process — precision, courage, independence and an unwillingness to be manipulated by procedural theatre — were present in abundance on this bench.
Lady Justices Banda-Bobo, Patel and Chembe brought to a deeply disordered situation exactly what it required: not more noise, but clarity. Not more delay, but decision. Not the path of least resistance, but the path that the law — and the parties before them — required them to take.
In a matter defined by chaos, carelessness and the abuse of process, three women brought order. The ruling they delivered is not just good law. It is, in the truest sense, good judgment.
WHAT COMES NEXT
The ruling is not the end of the road. The winding-up petition in Ndola must still be heard and determined. The broader pattern of abuse documented in the Sun Pharmaceuticals litigation awaits further judicial and regulatory attention. And the systemic vulnerabilities that the Court of Appeal has identified — in the ease of obtaining ex parte orders without return dates, in the absence of gatekeeping mechanisms against tactical insolvency petitions, in the inadequate oversight of provisional liquidators — require a legislative and institutional response that no single ruling can provide.
But what this ruling has provided is something equally important: a clear, authoritative statement of where the law stands, delivered by a court that was not prepared to be a bystander. The Law Association of Zambia, Parliament and the judiciary’s leadership would do well to build on it.
For now, Zambia’s courts — and those who appear in them — have been put firmly on notice. Three judges made sure of that.
Based on the ruling of the Court of Appeal for Zambia in Application No. 007/2026 (CAZ/08/616/2025), Ng’andu Consulting Limited & Others v David Mwale, decided 1 April 2026; and publicly available court filings and rulings in the Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited Zambia litigation, including cause numbers 2024/HN/93; 2024/HL/29; 2024/HP/1249; and 2024/HPC/0911.
This overdue guidance from the Hon Court is highly welcomed. The instances of this misuse of the court process have increased markedly, and this is a concern for both the judiciary and the nation’s lawyers – a point that the Court of Appeal Judges have emphasized clearly.
Courts serve as the last line of defense against the mafia’s attempt to seize control of government institutions and private property. May the Almighty protect these upright judges.
The Attorney General of Zambia, as the senior most member of the Bar and Chief legal advisor to the Government, should be at the forefront of addressing the systemic vulnerabilities identified by the Court of Appeal. The AG Chambers silence raises questions about their interest in these matters.
This panel’s ruling is important. But importance is not the same as consequence. The article asks the right question at the end: who is watching, and who is acting?
As the Law Association of Zambia gathers in Livingstone, including to discuss how lawyers can foster economic growth, they should also reflect on their responsibility in regulating the profession. A competent lawyer should advise clients to avoid questionable court procedures rather than contribute to lawlessness.
The court’s warning that future conduct of this kind may attract personal costs orders against counsel is long overdue. I would go further that suggest registries should be empowered and encouraged to flag, at the point of filing, cases involving parties or companies that are already the subject of existing proceedings. The technology to do this exists. The will to implement it is what is lacking.
There can be no stability or economic growth in Zambia without the rule of law. This ruling has changed the legal landscape for ‘bad actors’ in the country, who habitually exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities for personal gain.
https://www.lusakatimes.com/2026/04/05/court-of-appeal-sounds-alarm-over-abuse-of-ex-parte-orders-and-winding-up-petitions/
A powerful ruling demands a deterrent. LAZ must remove repeat offenders from the list of practicing lawyers
Yes FJ but for that to occur, the selfish political figures who often support the dishonest lawyers must also be removed from the system!
@FJ – It is noteworthy that certain well known lawyers have been directly called out in recent judgmens. Even before Chief Justice Mumba Malila recorded it in his landmark Post Newspapers judgment, it was common knowledge that Lewis Mosho, the law firm Lewis Nathan Advocates, and former staff members who worked there are among the most prolific ‘system exploiters’. Clearly, there are others; credible reports indicate Keith Mweemba Advocates is also highly involved under UPND in issuing similar types of orders to seize company assets. LAZ’s inaction is shocking.
Why is LT calling them Lady Justice? How does that help them? The media doesn’t refer to their male counterparts as Gentleman justice Malila. Why does LT feel compelled to identify the gender of a certain rank of lawyer?
As I understand it, “Lady Justice” is not a media-created term nor a gender-signaling label. It is the official formal title used in Zambia’s Court of Appeal for female judges,
You’ve raised a broader, genuine debate of whether gendered judicial titles are truly necessary or desirable. Reasonable minds can differ on this point. Some argue that a neutral title – simply “Justice”- better captures the equality of the position, regardless of who wears it. Others point out that these distinctions carry historical and ceremonial significance that many judges themselves find meaningful.
In my humble opinion, the core argument of the piece – that their ruling is exceptional in its legal merits- stands on its own.
Thank you, I’m learning something here but are these the first ladies ever in this court? I m prone to remember other female justices in Zambia whom we didn’t identify as “lady” justice; Justice Florence Mumba, justice Mulela Munalula, justice Ireen Mambilima etc.
Indeed I agree with the legal merits standpoint. I only feel the gendered title is somewhat belittling if not chauvinistic.
I don’t want to know the gender of who arrived at what decision in a legal matter
-perhaps in an illegal abortion finding it might be relevant?
Even the headline is sexist
Liba Leta, it’s undeniable that the Judgment is sound and the panel that made it is composed entirely of women. They serve as role models for our daughters (and sons), and equally for their fellow judges who may not always have upheld the law with the same astuteness as this panel.
@J Lungu but that’s true in many other spheres of life too. They were not appointed to serve as role models but to mete out justice.
We dont caption every professional achievement with gender. This action has nothing to do with their gender.
By sexually labeling this judgment we are ‘peculiarising’ it and could just be making our daughters uneasy.
The provisional liquidator began referring to the companies as ‘In Liquidation’ before any winding-up order had been made and before the petition had even been heard.
That single fact tells you everything you need to know about the nature of this exercise. The Court of Appeal saw it clearly. The question is whether PACRA and the Law Association of Zambia are paying equal attention?!
Precisely. A corporate raid orchestrated by lawyers, supported by a conveniently favorable court. The High Court must reflect on the damage they have inflicted upon the rule of law and litigants faith in its independence.
Hon Abha Patel and her colleagues on the Bench have written a reference judgment. As someone who appears regularly in Court, what struck me reading this ruling was not just the outcome but the methodology. The panel worked through the jurisdictional question, the special circumstances test, and the conduct of the lower court in a sequence that leaves no gaps for argument. That kind of structural discipline in a ruling is rarer than it should be, and it matters because it makes the judgment harder to distinguish away in future proceedings.
It’s quite an interesting development that since the ruling was released days ago, the author of the ruling, Judge Abha Patel, has been elevated to the Supreme Court. Her methodical approach to the matter has earned her the respect of not only her colleagues but also litigants who place their faith in the Courts of Law to be independent and fearless.
Interesting or fishy?
This is not an abstract legal problem. Every business owner in Zambia reading this should ask themselves: if someone with a stale, unproven claim from years ago can file an ex parte winding-up petition against my company tomorrow morning, have a provisional liquidator appointed by afternoon, and have lawyers writing to my bank before I even know proceedings exist – what exactly protects me? The answer, until this ruling, appeared to be very little, and only if you are lucky enough to find out in time.
Your comment is spot on! Should Justice rely on whether a party is, as you aptly put it, “lucky enough to discover on time”? Judges should refrain from issuing ex parte orders based on flimsy grounds and without providing return dates, as mandated by law.
Fascinating legal articles have been published recently by LT. What makes the Ng’andu judgment particularly noteworthy and deserving of reading across the region is the court’s explicit connection between procedural abuse and irreparable harm to company assets. Unlike most courts in sub-Saharan Africa that have addressed this issue on narrow jurisdictional grounds, the Zambian Court of Appeal posed a substantive question if assets are genuinely at risk while this procedural argument is being resolved? And it answered affirmatively. This analytical framework is the correct approach, not only in Zambia but across the region
Lawyers are so active with some topics. Except with human rights when they cower under their beds as politicians openly trample on our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, cyber freedom.
One wishes lawyers would be as active as this with these anti democratic decisions at times done by fellow lawyers such as changing a ruling because political rule has changed
You make a very fair point; there are too few lawyers like State Counsel John Sangwa who have consistently demonstrated the courage to uphold the right principles.
Manta ma lawyers. At least with Mthola Nkhanis we saw them speaking after 1991. They are the ones responsible for Chiluba not going for a third term. Give them a cheer.
Mthola nkhanis know that freedom of expression is a basic tenet of democracy. I wonder if lawyers know that the Judiciary and legislature are other basic tenets of democracy?