Zambia FA president Kalusha Bwalya has lost a bid to reclaim his house after defaulting on a US$ 26, 250-00 (about k130 million Kwacha) loan from Chardore Properties Limited.
According to a High Court judgment passed on June 25, 2012 by Nigel Mutuna, the interim order of preservation of property granted to Bwalya had been quashed.
Facts before the court were that sometime in October, 2008 Bwalya approached Chamunora Nyalungwe Haruperi (second defendant) as a representative of Chardore Properties for purposes of borrowing money.
The first defendant agreed to lend the plaintiff (Bwalya) the sum of US$ 26, 250-00 on condition that the plaintiff deposited the title deeds to his property stand number 921, Woodlands Lusaka with it (the property).
Upon the second defendant’s request, the plaintiff executed a contract of the sale and deed of assignment in respect of the property.
Subsequently, the first defendant transferred title to the property into its name alleging that the same was sold to it by the plaintiff.
However, Bwalya in his statement of claim said the defendant misrepresented to him that it was merely lending to him the sum of US$ 26, 250-00 saying it fraudulently transferred title to the property into its name.
In pleading the case Bwalya relied on Section 3 (1) of the misrepresentation act, CAP 70 of the Laws of Zambia.
The defendants contended that the parties freely contracted and understood the terms of the agreement entered into.
The defendants also contended that there was no false representation or omission or concealment of intention on their part.
Bwalya, the once celebrated Chipolopolo dribbler, had the option of buying back the property upon payment of US$ 32, 800-00 (about 160 million).
In his testimony Bwalya confirmed signing the contract of sale and deed of assignment but however denied signing the acknowledgement for the funds which indicated that he was selling the property.
In his testimony Haruperi said Bwalya approached him (second defendant) and offered to sell his property.
He testified that it was a term of contract that should the first defendant decide to resell the property, the plaintiff would be given the first right of refusal at US $ 32, 800-00 to purchase the property.
When the defendant decided to sell the property in February 2009 they invited Bwalya to exercise his right whether he wished to purchase the property the plaintiff responded by putting an encumbrance on the property.
Judge Mutuna dismissed Bwalya’s claim with cost saying it lacked merit.