The Economic and Financial Crimes Court (EFCC) has dismissed Lusaka businessman Sedrick Kasanda’s application to stay the execution of a judgment that permitted the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) to seize his properties amid ongoing investigations.
In a judgment dated January 20, 2024, the EFCC ruled in favor of DEC in a case concerning the seizure of Kasanda’s property.
The court upheld the legality of the seizure of his Ibex Hill house, Plot No. 19 Main Street.
The EFCC bench, comprising Judges Ann Malata-Ononuju, Ian Mabbobolo, and Vincent Siloka, rejected Kasanda’s petition, which challenged the legality of the DEC’s actions in 2023.
Kasanda argued that the seizure of his property was unlawful and violated his constitutional rights under Articles 16(1), 16(2), and 18 of the Zambian Constitution.
He sought a declaration that the DEC’s search and seizure were ultra vires, void ab initio, and unconstitutional.
He also claimed that the seizure caused distress to him and his family, including minors residing on the property, and requested damages.
The EFCC found that the DEC acted within its legal mandate under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
It determined that DEC had obtained valid search and seizure warrants in accordance with the law.
The judges ruled that Kasanda’s right to be presumed innocent was not violated, as the property seizure was part of an ongoing investigation.
The court further stated that the Zambian constitution allows for the seizure of property during investigations and dismissed Kasanda’s claim that his rights had been infringed.
Kasanda’s petition was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the Attorney General.
The court clarified that the seizure was for investigative purposes and that the property could either be returned or subjected to further legal proceedings depending on the investigation’s outcome.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Kasanda appealed to the Court of Appeal and filed an application with the EFCC to stay the execution of the judgment pending the appeal.
In his application, Kasanda argued that his appeal had reasonable prospects of success and that without a stay, DEC could execute the judgment, rendering the appeal meaningless.
Senior State Advocate Kelvin Chipulu opposed the application, asserting that the appeal lacked merit as Kasanda had not demonstrated any strong grounds for appeal.
He further contended that the judgment’s reliefs were primarily declaratory, except for the cost order.
The EFCC has ruled that there was no basis to grant a stay since the reliefs in question were declaratory in nature, and no taxation proceedings had begun regarding costs.
Thus, the court dismissed the application, deeming it fundamentally flawed and lacking merit.
