这是我们的团队

2023 – Present

Partner, MAY and Company.

2020 – 2023

Partner, Musa Dudhia & Co.

2016 – 2020

Senior Associate, Musa Dudhia & Co.

2013 – 2016

Associate, Musa Dudhia & Co.

Deal/Matter Description

Client

专业领域

Mulopa led as counsel for the Client who is an award-winning civil engineering consultancy firm contracted by the Government of Zambia for project management of the Kasaba Bay Airport runway construction. The project was suspended in January 2015 at 76% completion, leaving the Government owing the Client $15 million, later settled at $12.8 million with an agreement to reengage the Client for completion. In May 2023, the Government advertised for a new consultant. Mulopa challenged this decision through judicial review, seeking at least $33 million in damages. This case addresses prudent resource allocation by the Government and public policy concerns regarding honoring contractual agreements.

Ng’andu Consulting Limited

Projects disputes

Mulopa assisted the Client, who runs a tourism enterprise called Ila Safari Lodge, in Kafue National Park, with an insurance claim against Nico Insurance Zambia Limited. Under the Fire Policy, Nico Insurance was to cover property damage and business interruption losses up to $1,817,300 per claim. After suffering covered losses, the Client received only partial payment and experienced delays. They initiated legal action to recover the full claimed amount and damages for the delay. The case aims to address insurance claim processing delays and advocate for extending coverage periods if payment is delayed.

Green Safaris Zambia Limited

Insurance Litigation

Mulopa assisted the Client who is a statutory body regulating engineering professionals and organizations in Zambia, which is responsible for member discipline. The body suspended Bicon Zambia Limited after a column collapse at the Society Business Park Project on October 13, 2019, causing injuries and business disruption. The suspension, issued on July 23, 2022, was unusual because it was executed by the Council rather than the Disciplinary Committee and before a hearing. Mulopa secured judicial endorsement for this suspension method in a separate case.

Bicon Zambia Limited challenged the suspension in the High Court and won an injunction to reverse it. Mulopa argued that, as a public body, challenges should follow judicial review procedures rather than a writ of summons. The High Court dismissed this preliminary issue, and Mulopa has now appealed to the Court of Appeal.

赞比亚工程学会

诉讼

Mulopa led as counsel for our Client who is a statutory body that regulates engineering professionals, units, and organizations in Zambia. This body consists of three statutory organs, including the Disciplinary Committee, which handles complaints of misconduct or code breaches.

A public complaint was lodged with the Disciplinary Committee against WBHO Construction Zambia Limited, alleging they used unqualified or unregistered personnel for a construction project. WBHO challenged the Disciplinary Committee’s authority, arguing that without a statutory instrument under its enabling legislation, the committee couldn't rule on the complaint. After the committee dismissed this preliminary issue, WBHO appealed to the High Court.

This case is significant because it could disrupt a longstanding system crucial for maintaining order in the engineering profession. Mulopa's role is to defend the Client in the appeal, arguing that the committee's rules, even those predating the current Engineering Act of 2010, are still valid and enforceable.

赞比亚工程学会

诉讼

Mulopa led as advocates of record to protect the interests of the Client after purchasing a farm from beneficiaries of an intestate deceased estate. The Client invested $5 million in developing the farm over a decade.

Disputes among the deceased's extended family led to attempts to nullify the sale, despite it not affecting their estate shares. These attempts failed in previous court actions. The disgruntled family members then applied for probate over the same estate, which was already administered under a High Court grant.

Mulopa’s role was to ensure the Client joined the action to be heard on whether the High Court should issue another grant. They argued that any new grant should exclude the already completed farm sale and emphasized the principle of finality in estate administration. Mulopa contended that even if the grant was revoked or varied, the sale of land by the current administrators should remain valid. Additionally, they argued that if the disgruntled family members were granted letters of administration, they should be prevented from interfering with the Client's purchased farm.

Makuku Farms Limited

诉讼

Probate and Succession

Mulopa led as the advocates of record for Clients involved in designing and constructing buildings, heavy construction, and railways in Zambia, as well as supplying prefabricated concrete products for railway rehabilitation. The Clients, part of a consortium called Team Sweden Railway, won a tender to rehabilitate the Chingola-Livingstone railway line and signed a €978,093,639 Engineering, Procurement, and Construction contract with two government-owned entities. The contract was split into two phases: assessing the track in Phase 1 and performing the construction work in Phase 2. The Clients completed 92.3% of Phase 1 and submitted interim payment certificates (IPCs), which were approved by the Engineer but not paid by the Entities. When the Clients requested payment, the Entities counterclaimed $3,600,000, alleging it was paid to a third consortium company for a different project. The Clients then initiated legal action against the Entities for unpaid IPCs, breach of contract damages, and indemnification for VAT penalties incurred due to the Entities' non-payment.

His role is notable as it involves a large government contract, major infrastructure project, and legal complexities involving construction law, public procurement, consortium issues, IPC approvals, third-party claims, and VAT indemnification, highlighting the firm's expertise and litigation strategy.

Yapi Merkezi Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S & Yapiray Demiryolu Insaat Sistermleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S

Dispute Resolution

Mulopa led as advocates of record for the Clients, investment firms trading on the London Stock Exchange's specialist fund market, in an arbitration with Shoprite Holdings Limited (“Shoprite Holdings”). The arbitration award in South Africa ruled that the Clients were not entitled to dividends on 120,153 shares they held, except for 11,059 shares due to how the additional shares were acquired. Following this, Shoprite Holdings and Shoprite Checkers (PTY) Limited (“Shoprite Checkers”) obtained ex parte orders from a District Registrar in Zambia that amended the Arbitral Award and required 796,622 of the 807,691 ordinary shares held by the Clients to be returned to Shoprite Checkers. The Clients contested these orders, and on 30 August 2023, a Judge-in-Chambers ruled that the District Registrar had exceeded his authority. The Judge annulled the ex parte orders, returning the shares to Shoprite Checkers and reversing the decision to amend the registers at the Lusaka Stock Exchange (“LuSE”). This ruling allows the Clients to challenge the registration and enforcement of the award, arguing that new information suggests undisclosed conflicts of interest by the Tribunal, making enforcement in Zambia contrary to public policy.

This case is significant as it explores the duty of disclosure and whether arbitrators must disclose close or familial relationships with parties' advocates.

Africa Opportunity Fund LP & Africa Opportunity Cayman Limited

Dispute Resolution

Mulopa led as advocates of record for the Client which is a cooperative of large commercial Zambian dairy farmers in a dispute with Lactalis. Initially, the Client held 28.5% of Lactalis’s shares, giving it crucial voting power for special resolutions, including changes to share capital and issuance of shares. However, in 2018, Lactalis increased its share capital from ZMW 30,000 to ZMW 91,630,000 through a resolution signed by major shareholder Dalmata SpA, but not by the Client. This led to the dilution of the Client's shareholding from 28.5% to 0.008%. In 2021, another resolution by Dalmata SpA raised the share capital to ZMW 216,630,000 and further diluted the Client’s shares to 0.003%, resulting in the loss of meaningful voting power. The Client then initiated legal action against Lactalis and Dalmata SpA.

This case is significant for its interpretation of the Companies Act provisions on minority shareholder oppression and the nuances of share issuance and allotment. It could set a precedent for share capital alterations and minority shareholder rights.

Mukulu Dairies Limited

Dispute Resolution