High Court Exposes Lev Leviev

Israeli Billionaire Lev Leviev’s conspiracy to take over Gemancanton Mine based in Lufwanyama District has been thrown out with costs by the Lusaka High Court
Mr Lev Leviev using Lusaka Lawyer Dickson Jere and his trusted front Eli Nefussy doctored Namibian court documents and hoped to use them in grabbing Gemancaton but this backfired when the Zambian courts demanded to approve the same papers.

Lev Leviev

According to a judgment obtained, Mr Nefussy working together with Dickson Jere schemed to takeover the Emerald Mining Company using dubious documents obtained in Namibia.

According to the judgement delivered by Judge MC Mulanda on 19th December 2018, Mr Jere and Eli Nefussy, who was deported by the Zambian authorities attempted to dribble the Zambian court by presenting fake court papers obtained from Namibia to takeover Gemancaton Mine on the Copperbelt.

Facts before the High Court are that Jere and Nefussy both fronts of Lev Leviev, an Isleali Billionare did scheme to take over Zambia’s Gemcaton Emerald Mine in Lufwanyama district from its true owners.
“At the hearing, Mr Muya of Z. Muya and Company in submitting

on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary application on the application to set

aside the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, informed the Court that at the time that this preliminary application was filed,the affidavit in support of the two applications; that is the application to set aside the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim and the affidavit in opposition to the injunction application, were filed as a combined affidavit. Later on, the affidavit was split into two, therefore, the two affidavits were answering to either of the applications. He, however, indicated that, in raising this preliminary application, the Plaintiffs would only be attacking the affidavit dated the 16th of November 2018. With this clarification by Mr Muya, I shall not address the issue of the combined affidavit, raised in the Plaintiffs’ Skeleton Arguments, but instead, I shall

only focus on the affidavit filed by the Defendants on 16th November, 20 18, which is the Affidavit if support of the application to set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim file in this matter.

Mr Muya submitted, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, that the affidavit filed on the 16th of November 2018 ought to be expunged from the record for flouting, not only the procedure, but the law relating to authentication of documents executed outside Zarnbia.
He argued that this affidavit is not a valid affidavit as it has not been notarrzed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Authentication of Documents Act, Cap. 75 of the Laws of Zambia,provisions under Order 5. Accordingly, the said affidavit cannot,

on the basis of that order and rule, be admitted into evidence and used by this Court.

Mr Jere argued that authentication deals with the actual documents, that is, the Share Agreement not the affidavit. I

totally disagree with this submission, because, under Section 3 of

the Authentication of Documents Act, Cap. 75 of the Laws of Zarnbia, an affidavit is included in the definition of documents that are required to be authenticated.

Concerning the submission by Mr Jere that authentication of documents is only an issue where a third party wants to rely on a document executed outside the country, I am inclined to accept the Plaintiffs’ submission that the affidavit in issue is being tendered into Court which knows nothing about the parties, other

than the issues that are brought before it and, therefore, there is need for authentication,” the judgment read in part

A thorough check discovered that in fact the papers were fake and not tantamount to an order of property take over.
The judge said he had scrutinized the said affidavit from Windhoek even if the country where Windhoek is situated was not included in the said affidavit.
The Judge said he noted that although the affidavit was signed by the notary public, it bearing a stamp and not a seal of a notary public as required by law.
“Accordingly, if the Plaintiffs still wish to challenge the regularity of

the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed in this matter, they are at liberty to file a properly executed affidavit to replace

this defective affidavit, before the hearing of the application to set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim can take place. In that light, I order that the said affidavit be filed into Court within

21 days from today. I also order costs of this application to be paid

by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs within 21 days from today,”