By Daily Revelation Reporter
Kabwata Member of Parliament (UPND) Andrew Tayengwa and Lusaka City Council have been sued by a Chinese company over a piece of land.
In this case, Zhongyang & Hua Jiang Construction Group has asked the Lusaka High court to declare and order that
it is the lawful owner of the property situated on Chilumbulu road in Lusaka.
The company is also seeking an order to compel LCC to grant it building permission and also grant an injunction against Tayengwa from interfering with its quiet possession, enjoyment and or development of the said piece of land.
Zhongyang & Hua Jiang Construction Group has further asked the court to grant it damages, costs and any further relief that the court might deem fit .
According to a statement of claim, Zhongyang & Hua Jiang Construction Group stated that it was a limited company.
Zhongyang & Hua Jiang Construction Group stated that it was the bonafide owner of the property in question and had issued with a certificate of title.
The company stated that it has already put up a perimeter steel fence around the said piece of land.
Zhongyang & Hua Jiang Construction Group stated that it intended to commence development but it halted after being summoned by the LCC.
It stated that it was advised by the LCC to apply for building permission from the council which did on September 30, 2022 and to that effect it was granted building permission application No 101455.
Zhongyang & Hua Jiang Construction Group stated that on or about January 5, 2023, the company wrote to the council notifying it about its intentions to commence construction as they awaited approval of their permission.
It has submitted that it’s now 11 months, the Lusaka City Council has wilfully neglected and or refused to consider the building permission application without any justification.
Zhongyang & Hua Jiang Construction Group stated that Tayengwa, the second defendant using his office as area MP was allegedly harassing and or interfering with its quiet enjoyment of the property, stating that the property was wrongly sold to the plaintiff.
