Trident Packaging Limited v Gavi Beverages Limited and Ors (2024/HKC/64) (2 December 2025) – ZambiaLII

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2024/HKC/64 AT THE COMMERCIAL REGISTRY GAVI BEVERAGES LIMITED 1 ST RESPONDENT UMA MAHESWAR REDDY GAVI REDDY 2ND RESPONDENT SYAM SUNDER REDDY GAVI REDDY 3RD RESPONDENT MADHUSUDAN REDDY GAV I REDDY 4TH RESPONDENT VEDASTE NZEYIMANA 5TH RESPONDENT SUBHASHINI REDDY GAVI REDDY 6TH RESPONDENT Before the Hon. Mr. Justice E. Pengele in Chambers on 2nd December, 2025. For the Petitioner: Mr. F. Chalenga of Messrs. Freddie and Company For the Provisional Liquidator: Mr. P.H. Yangailo with Ms. Mary Zulu of Messrs. P.H. Yangailo and Company For the 1st Respondent: Counsel for the Provisional Liquidator. For the 2nd Respondent: Mr. M. Tembo of Messrs. Andrew Musukwa and Company For the 3rd Respondent: N / A For the 4th Respondent: Mr. Z. Sinkala of Messrs. Z.S. Legal Practitioners For the 5th Respondent: Mr. D. Jere of Messrs. Dickson For the 6th Respondent: Mr. D. Mushenya of Messrs. Wright Chambers For the Affected Party: N/A RUL I NG Legislation referred to: a. High Court Rules, Chapter 27 of the Laws of Zambia; and b. High Court (Amendment) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 58 of 2020. I have taken time to carefully consider the application by the 2nd Respondent for an adjournment of the hearing of the winding up petition to another day. I have also given due regard to the oppositions by Counsel for the Petitioner, the Provisional Liquidator and the 1st Respondent, the 4th Respondent, the 5th Respondent and the 6th Respondent. The Rules of Court make provision for when a Judge may adjourn a hearing. In this regard, Order 33, rules 1 and 2 of the High Court Rulesa, as amended by the High Court (Amendment) Rulesb, provide as follows: -R2- "1. A Judge shall not grant an application for an adjournment except in compelling and exceptional circumstances. 2. A party intending to apply for adjournment of a hearing shall, not less than ten days before the date set for hearing, file a notice of that intention". As rightly submitted by Counsel for the parties that are opposing the application, the 2nd Respondent has not advanced any reason to justify its failure to file an affidavit in opposition to the winding up petition. As rightly argued, the 2nd Respondent has been a party to these proceedings for over a year now. In addition to the foregoing, the date for today's hearing of the winding up petition was indicated in this Court's Ruling of 8th October, 2025. The 2nd Respondent has not stated why it did not file its affidavit in opposition even after having been given notice of the date of hearing of the winding up petition in the aforesaid Ruling. What the 2nd Respondent did instead was to file an application on 27th November, 2025, for an order to set aside the petition and steps taken for irregularity, want of jurisdiction and abuse of court process. I hold the firm view that the 2nd Respondent's aforesaid application is not a notice to adjourn the winding up petition. The notice -R3- required by the Rules must state the reasons for asking for an adjournment. The Court may only adjourn if it finds that those reasons are exceptional and compelling. In any case, the 2nd Respondent only filed the application to set aside the petition on 27th November, 2025, which was just two working days ago. I hold that the 2nd Respondent's application cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of the Rules to give notice of adjournment at least 10 days before the date of hearing. As submitted by Counsel for the parties opposing the application for adjournment, this is a Commercial Court which has been created as a fast track court for commercial actions. Dilatory tendencies are not allowed in commercial matters. This winding up petition was filed on 6th November, 2024. It has suffered serious delays occasioned by numerous applications. I do not think that I can allow any party to continue delaying the hearing of the winding up petition in the absence of exceptional and compelling reasons. I hold that no injustice would be occasioned to the 2nd Respondent if I allowed the winding up petition to proceed because the 2nd Respondent has had more than ample time to file its opposition. -R4- In the absence of any compelling and exceptional reasons for adjourning this winding up petition and the 2nd Respondent having failed to file a notice of adjournment at least 10 days before today, I hereby refuse to grant the 2nd Respondent's application for an adjournment. I order that the petition for winding up will proceed today as scheduled. The costs shall be in the cause. Delivered at Kitwe this 2nd day of December, 2025. I JUDICIARY OF Z,\MBlA HIGH COUR.T ~ Commercial Divi~ion j& --;;_T~i:;\;";;~-;;;-- o 2 DEC 20257-~: ! a.---- HIGH COURT JUDGE If JUDGE-IN-CHARGE PO BOX 20135. KJTWE -RS-