By 
The legal battle over the burial of late former President Edgar Lungu has dealt another blow to his family, after the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria dismissed their application for leave to appeal against an earlier ruling that allowed the Zambian government to repatriate his body for a state funeral and burial back home.
A panel of three judges, led by Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba, ruled that there were no reasonable prospects of success in the family’s attempt to overturn the court’s August 8 decision in favour of the Zambian government.
The family, represented by Senior Counsel Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, had advanced three key arguments.
Read more: Advocate to late President Lungu’s family labels Zambian govt’s case a legal fantasy
They contended that, as heirs, they held exclusive burial rights under common law and constitutional protection.
They further argued that, since the dispute was litigated in South Africa where the remains lie, South African law should apply instead of Zambian law.
The family also cited a prior agreement, known as FAA7, which they claimed mandated that repatriation of the late president’s body be handled privately by the family, not the state.
The judges dismissed each of these claims. They noted that Zambia’s Attorney-General, Mulilo Kabesha, was competent to present Zambian law before the court, and affirmed that Mr. Lungu, as a former head of state, remained entitled to burial benefits at state expense, despite losing some privileges during his lifetime.
The court also found that the FAA7 document did not exclude government involvement in the repatriation process.
On the question of whether a corpse could be subject to contractual obligations, the bench found the argument irrelevant.
They added that while burial disputes often reach the courts, this particular case raised no compelling constitutional issues to justify a further appeal.
“The Court is satisfied that on the merits, there are no reasonable prospects of success,” the judges declared, ruling that the family’s case was fact-specific and unlikely to set any precedent.
The application was dismissed with costs, including the engagement of two senior counsel.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments