Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Cornell University Law School

2019

Finsbury Investment Limited

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

The People V The Patents And Companies Registration Agency Ex-Partes Finsbury Investment Limited And Zambezi Portland Cement Limited 2017/Ccz/R003 Selected Judgment No. 28 Of 2018, Chanda Chungu Nov 2019

The People V The Patents And Companies Registration Agency Ex-Partes Finsbury Investment Limited And Zambezi Portland Cement Limited 2017/Ccz/R003 Selected Judgment No. 28 Of 2018, Chanda Chungu

SAIPAR Case Review

The dispute related to how to commence judicial review proceedings in Zambia. The applicant in this matter commenced judicial review proceedings in the High Court of Zambia by way of applying for leave. In between the period after the High Court granted leave to hear the merits of the judicial review and the hearing date, the Patents and Companies Registration Agency (PACRA), the Respondent filed an application to discharge the leave granted. It was at this point that the Applicants filed summons, to have the matter referred to the Constitutional Court to determine whether or not the requirement for leave …


The People V The Patents And Companies Registration Agency Ex-Partes Finsbury Investment Limited And Zambezi Portland Cement Limited 2017/Ccz/R003 Selected Judgment No. 28 Of 2018, O'Brien Kaaba Nov 2019

The People V The Patents And Companies Registration Agency Ex-Partes Finsbury Investment Limited And Zambezi Portland Cement Limited 2017/Ccz/R003 Selected Judgment No. 28 Of 2018, O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

The matter came to the Constitutional Court by referral from the High Court. The Applicant applied for leave to issue judicial review process and leave was granted by the High Court. While the main application for judicial review was still pending, the Respondent filed an application to discharge the leave granted to the Applicant. The Applicant opposed this motion and then applied to have the matter referred to the Constitutional Court.