Gemcanton boss granted extension to file appeal

THE Court of Appeal has granted an order of extension to Eli Nefussy, the managing director of Gemcanton Emerald in Zambia, in which to file the record of appeal and heads of arguments in the case in which he is challenging his deportation from Zambia.

This is in a case in which Mr Nefussy, an Israeli investor and the co-CEO of Gemcanton Investments Holdings, an emerald mine in Lufwanyama, is challenging his deportation from Zambia. When the matter came up for hearing in chambers on Monday, Justice Siavwapa granted the order after Mr. Nefussy’s lawyer Dickson Jere of Mvunga Associates told the court that the record of appeal and heads of arguments were ready to be filed in Court in readiness for the hearing of the appeal. Mr Jere explained that the delay was necessitated by the busy schedule of court officials who were tasked to type the notes, which forms part of the record of appeal. Justice Siavwapa gave Mr Nefussy up to Friday, October 26, 2018 in which to file all the relevant documents and serve the same on the Attorney General’s chambers. “I find that the reasons given by the appellant for the delay are genuine and that there is no inordinate delay in making this application. I therefore grant the order of extension,” Justice Siavwapa said. Earlier, the state through its lawyer Maurice Kapulu had opposed the application saying it was made late and that was there was an inordinate delay on the part of the appellant. On November 28, 2017, a combined team of police and immigration officers captured and deported Mr Nefussy under unclear reasons following a trading dispute with another shareholder in the company. Mr Jere then wrote to Home Affairs Minister Stephen Kampyongo, asking him to rescind the decision saying his client had done nothing wrong save for the fact that he had raised the alarm after discovering that his business associate had spent US$21 million without any explanation of what the money was used for. In December 2017, the Lusaka High Court granted Mr Nefussy leave to challenge his deportation through a judicial review. The court however refused to stay his deportation saying a court cannot stay an action which had already been taken.