Ruling reserved on KCM arbitration bid
LUSAKA High Court has reserved ruling on the application to stay the winding up proceedings of Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) and refer the matter to arbitration.
Early this month, Vedanta Resources Holdings, the KCM majority shareholder had applied for an order of court to refer the parties to arbitration.
e issues for determination are whether there was a dispute between the parties and whether the matter should be stayed and referred to arbitration.
is is in a case where ZCCMIH has petitioned the mining company seeking an order that it should be wound up for engaging in tax evasion and being managed in a manner detrimental to its interest among other allegations.
In May this year, High Court Judge Annessie Banda-Bobo granted ZCCM-IH an order to appoint Mr Lungu, of Messrs Lungu Simwanza and Company, as provisional liquidator of KCM.
High Court Judge Annessie Banda-Bobo, after deliberations that lasted close to seven hours yesterday, reserved her ruling on the matter to a later date to be communicated.
During deliberations, ZCCMIH opposed Vedanta's application saying there was no dispute warranting such an order.
ZCCM-IH contended that Vedanta was not seeking any injunctive relief against it.
It urged the court to continue with the winding up proceedings as there was no dispute that had risen to warrant the reference of the matter to arbitration.
ZCCM-IH said there was no dispute because there was an admission of insolvency from KCM.
And KCM also opposed the application for arbitration and requested the court to dismiss it with cost.
It submitted that Vedanta was not a party to proceedings and could not therefore move the court under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act.
KCM said the court on June 20 this year refused to join Vedanta to the proceedings.
It stated in the amended petition that the issues commenced by ZCCM-IH were those which an arbitrator could not deal with.
KCM said the Corporate Insolvency Act had given the court the authority to wind up companies.
Meanwhile, Vedanta, through its lawyer Mulenga Mundashi, argued that it was a party to the shareholders agreement.
Vedanta argued it was a party to the proceedings and therefore prayed that the court sustained the application.