By 
Dalitso Lungu, son of former Zambian president Edgar Chagwa Lungu, has asked the Court of Appeal to overturn a High Court decision that ordered the forfeiture of more than 70 motor vehicles and several properties valued at about K23 million, which the State alleged were proceeds of crime.
The seized assets include a filling station in Jack Compound reportedly leased to Total Zambia for US$8,000 per month, along with parcels of land and other real estate.
The forfeiture was granted under the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No. 19 of 2010 through a non-conviction-based process.
In their notice of appeal filed on Feb. 25, 2026, Malisa and Partners Legal Practitioners argued that the High Court—comprising Justices Pixie Yangailo, Anne Malata-Ononuju and Vincent Siloka—erred in law and fact when it concluded that the properties were “tainted” without identifying any specific serious offence, as required by Section 2 of the Act.
The appellants said the State failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a sufficient link between any alleged offence and the properties.
They argued that the court misdirected itself by relying on findings that the appellants’ known lawful income was insufficient to justify ownership of the assets, rather than determining whether the properties met the statutory definition of “tainted property.”
The appeal further challenges the High Court’s finding that the burden of proof shifted to them once the State established what it called a prima facie case or “reasonable grounds to suspect.” They said this conflated distinct statutory thresholds under Sections 31 and 34 of the Act and effectively reversed the burden of proof.
“The Court below erred in law and in fact when it rejected the Appellants’ unchallenged affidavit evidence that the late former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu financed the purchase of certain properties, while simultaneously accepting the Respondent’s affidavit evidence, which was largely premised on hearsay, thereby applying different evidential standards to the parties,” the filing stated.
They further submitted that the court departed from binding precedent set in Sydney Mwansa v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Appeal No. 276/2021), decided on June 11, 2024, and improperly relied on Section 71 of the Act rather than Sections 29 and 31 governing non-conviction-based forfeiture.
The appellants also faulted the court for raising issues concerning the Jack Compound property without affording them a hearing, accepting unverified vehicle valuations totalling K23,050,842.49, rejecting their affidavit evidence while accepting what they described as hearsay from the respondent, and condemning them in costs.
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