Vedanta asks court to uphold judicial review ruling
VEDANTA Resources Holdings Limited and two others have submitted that the court cannot revisit the granted order for them to commence judicial proceedings against Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) because the court becomes of no further official authority when all substantive issues are determined.
The three were on January 13, 2021 granted leave by the Lusaka High Court to commence action against KCM.
In this matter, Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited, Vedanta Resources ( Jersey II) Limited and Vedanta Resources Limited have sued Provisional liquidator Milingo Lungu challenging the splitting of KCM.
The three want the Lusaka High Court to order Mr Lungu to immediately reverse any process of KCM reorganisation.
The three in their list of authorities and skeleton arguments in support of the notice of motion to raise a point of law stated that the issue they are rising is whether the court having granted leave to commence action against KCM and that them having proceeded with the action, has jurisdiction to revisit or reopen the order granting leave.
And that whether the principle of functus officio is applicable to the court in respect of the order granting leave to commence an action against KCM.
“It is therefore out of contention that the courts’ jurisdiction to review its own judgement or orders is limited only to the extent that is provided for under Order 39 of the High Court rules and the court cannot on its own motion move to review or reopen its own decision,” they submitted.
Vedanta Resources Holdings and others submitted that though the court was dealing with the requirement for leave to commence judicial review proceedings, the leave is substantive because the court can only proceed to determine such a matter where leave has been granted by it.
“With regards the requirement for leave to commence an action against a company in liquidation is a substantive requirement to the extent that a party cannot institute proceedings against a company in liquidation without the leave of the court,” they stated.
They stated that when any party is aggrieved with the decision, the party ought to appeal the decision.