By Esther Chisola
PF faction leader Miles Sampa has asked the Lusaka High Court to dismiss the matter in which nine PF members of parliament who were expelled in December last year, have sued him seeking an order to quash his election as party president.
Brian Mundubile, Stephen Kampyongo, Christopher Kang’ombe, Ronald Chitotela, Remember Mutale, Mulenga Fube, Mutotwe Kafwaya, Nickson Chilangwa and Emmanuel Musonda also seek a permanent injunction to restrain Sampa from holding himself out as the party president.
The nine are seeking a declaration that Sampa contravened the party’s electoral regulations, as well as articles 20(1)(e), 46(4), 52, 58(k), and 64 of the PF party constitution.
In an affidavit in support of notice of motion to raise a Preliminary Inquiry and dismiss matter on a point of law filed by Sampa, he stated that after perusing through the statement of claim filed by the plaintiffs, he noted that the same was plagued with irregularities.
He submitted that the reliefs the plaintiffs were claiming were claimed in prior actions commenced by either the plaintiffs or other members of the general public seeking the same reliefs under cause 2023/HB/77, 2023/HP/ 1866 and other four cause numbers.
“It is our submission that the plaintiffs in this matter are undertaking a voyage of forum shopping which amounts to an abuse of the court process,” he stated.
Sampa contended that the matter ought to be dismissed on account of the plaintiff’s conduct in navigating between various courts in order to choose which court they deem to be most suitable and favourable to their case.
“It is our submission that this matter constitutes a multiplicity of actions on account of the fact that the plaintiffs’ whether jointly or severally commenced matters seeking a similar redress against the defendants’ under the stated cause numbers and in doing so the court process dragged the defendant to multiple forums in endeavouring to achieve the same goal,” submitted Sampa. “It is our humble prayer that this court exercise its discretion judiciously and on well-established principles and dismiss this action for failure to follow the rules of court and order that the costs should be borne by the plaintiffs.”
