MFMN AFFIDAVIT OF FACT - Lumamba Lweza - Final

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared :Mutenguna-Franklin-

Mukakanga:Nalubamba, who being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows: “Mutenguna-
Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba, a man and a creation of God-Almighty, am over the age of
consent, am of sound mind, and have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein. I have
created this Affidavit to establish the true facts of this matter, because this matter lacks the
standard of regularity. I declare under the penalty of perjury and under the laws of the Republic
of Zambia, that I will testify in open court that the facts stated herein are the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
MAXIM: Regula pro lege, si deficit lex. (2 BOU. 155.)—In default of the law, the maxim rules.
MAXIM: Recurrendum est ad extraordinarium quando non valet ordinarium. (WHART. 870.)—
We must have recourse to what is extraordinary when what is ordinary fails.
1. i a man am informed and believe that Mwanang'ambwa Muuluka, the first registered
Chief Nalubamba of the Baila of Mbeza, is my great-grandfather; that I am the firstborn son of
Munyati Rex Mukakanga, son of Mutenguna, who himself was born to Mwanang’ambwa from
his 4th wife (Ina Mutenguna); my house being the 4th house of the royal household of Chief
Nalubamba the first. Do you deny this?
2. i a man am informed and believe that Mwanang’ambwa Nalubamba had a brother

named Munamooya, who was close to him in all the time of his chieftaincy until death parted them.
Do you deny this?
3. i a man am informed and believe that Nalubamba’s royal household was made up of 8
wives, 7 of whom bore him children. Do you deny this?
4. According to Baila custom, i a man am informed and believe, the senior most male
members of my family – by generation – are its leaders and administer all matters of consequence,
including successions, and that all members of our family and community are bound to Baila
customary law.
MAXIMS: Mos retinendus est fidelissima vetustatis (4 COKE, 78)— A custom of the truest
antiquity is to be retained.
MAXIM: Consuetudo alicujus loci lex est legis loci. (LOFFT, 338.)—The custom of any place
is the law of that place.
Do you deny this?
5. Of Nalubamba’s sons' sons (grandsons), of the most senior generation of Nalubamba’s

direct descendants, the 7 surviving to date are Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, Desai Nalubamba,
George Mukakanga Nalubamba, Chooye Chikabbe, Kent Milumbe, Pawsen Munamooya
Nalubamba and Godfrey Munamooya Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
6. i a man am informed and believe that these named individuals are the fathers (bamatata)
and senior most Banaa Balombwana (sons of sons) of Chief Nalubamba’s royal family. Do you deny
this?
7. i a man am informed and believe that at this time these 7 grandsons of Nalubamba, the
senior Banaa Balombwana: Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, Desai Nalubamba, George Mukakanga
Nalubamba, Chooye Chikabbe, Kent Milumbe, Pawsen Munamooya Nalubamba and Godfrey
Munamooya Nalubamba, are the ones who had the mandate to decide, by majority decision,
amongst themselves first, who the successor to the seat of Chief Nalubamba was supposed to be
after the passing of their brother Bright Nalubamba.
MAXIM: Quod constat clare non debet vereficari. (10 MOD. 150)—What appears clearly,
need not be proved.
Do you deny this?
8. i a man am informed and believe that after reaching that decision, the aforenamed
grandsons of Nalubamba are the ones mandated to give the name of the selected chief to the
Bakwashi (i.e., anointers) for public announcement. Do you deny this?
9. i a man am informed and believe that, according to African customary law, after his
selection, a member of the senior most generation selected to be chief reserves the right to forfeit
his rights to the seat in favour of one of his 'sons' (kulukila/kuleyela mwana) or give the chieftaincy
into a chosen individual’s stewardship/caretakership. Do you deny this?
10. i a man am informed and believe that in 1947, after Nalubamba’s death, Jim Shimabwe
Kapobola, Nalubamba’s son from his first wife, was named and anointed chief (kukwatwa). Do you
deny this?
11. i a man am informed and believe that Rice Mwachisowa, Nalubamba's son from his
second wife, overthrew Jim Shimabwe Kapobola and became chief within a short time of his
selection, ruling until his own death in 1972. Do you deny this?
12. After the death of Rice Mwachisowa in 1972, Simon Chiimbwe, born from Nalubamba's
third wife, was named and anointed (kukwatwa) as Chief Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
13. i a man claim that the sequence of successors to Nalubamba’s seat from 1947 to 1972,
from houses 1 to 2 to 3, clearly demonstrates consistency with the beginnings of a sequential, and,
by reason of extrapolation, rotational, custom of succession among the royal family (Bana Mwami)
of Muuluka Mwanang’ambwa Nalubamba of the Bana Munyati of Mbeza. Do you deny this?
14. i a man am informed and believe that shortly after being anointed as chief (kukwatwa),
owing to known extenuating circumstances, Simon Chiimbwe gave (i.e. kulukila) the chieftaincy to
Bright Nalubamba, Rice Mwachisowa's son, to be its caretaker chief. Do you deny this?
15. i a man claim that i am the firstborn son of Munyati, the legitimate firstborn son of my
grandfather Mutenguna through his first wife Evelina, my grandfather himself being Muuluka
Mwanang’ambwa’s firstborn son from his 4th house, this fact giving me a legitimate interest in the
chieftaincy currently, as the 4th house is next in line for accession to the chieftaincy according to the
succession sequence shown above, and as i am eligible to accede to and am the probable heir to
the throne from the 4th house. Do you deny this?
16. i a man am informed and believe that Bright Nalubamba was never anointed (kukwatwa)
by anyone. Do you deny this?
17. i a man am informed and believe that Simon Chiimbwe died in 1983 without receiving the
chieftaincy back from its caretaker Bright Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
18. i a man am informed and believe that Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba inherited the name
of his father (kulyezina) upon his death but did not stop the caretaker chief Bright Nalubamba from
continuing to administer the chieftaincy on his behalf.
19. i a man am informed and believe that in line with African customary law, Judge Chiimbwe
Nalubamba’s inheriting of his father's name passed on to him not only that name, but also made
him the eventual receiver and custodian of any of his father’s properties not in his possession at the
time of his death. Do you deny this?
20. i a man am informed and believe that Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, a man, as the
inheritor of the name and estate of Simon Chiimbwe – his father – is the possessor of the property
that he gave to Bright Nalubamba for safekeeping before his death, i.e., the rights to the bwami of
the Bana Munyati and its office, the Chiefship of Nalubamba; that these both reverted to Judge-
Chiimbwe Nalubamba’s possession automatically after the death of its steward Bright Nalubamba,
as a matter of custom and in keeping with the law of nature.
MAXIM: Hæreditas est successio in universum jus quod defunctus habuerat . (COKE, LITT.
237.b. )—Inheritance is the succession to every right possessed by the deceased person.
MAXIM: Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred. (2 BOU. 26 12.)
MAXIM: Le ley favour l’inheritance d’un home. (YEAR B. HEN. vi .51) —The law favors a
man’s inheritance.
Do you deny this?
21. i a man am informed and believe, based on the above (129), that the chieftaincy of
Nalubamba (Bwami) and its seat returned to Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba after the death of Bright
Nalubamba for his administration as he may see fit. Do you deny this?
22. Further, i a man claim that according to African customary law Judge Chiimbwe
Nalubamba being the owner of the seat of Nalubamba as inheritor of the name 'Mwanag’ambwa
Muuluka Nalubamba' the first chief Nalubamba (his grandfather), is the seat’s primary administrator,
and no administration of said seat can be done without his giving the rights to any man or woman
to do so.
MAXIM: Quod nostrum est, sine facto sive defectu nostro , amitti seu in alium transferri non
potest. (8 COKE, 92)—That which is ours cannot be lost or transferred to another without
our own act, or our own fault.
MAXIM: What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
Do you deny this?
23. i a man claim that no one, other than the senior most generation of the Banaa
Balombwana of the Bana Mwami of Nalubamba chiefdom and the known bakwashi of the
Nalubamba chiefdom who safeguard it, are granted rights by its primary administrator Judge
Chiimbwe Nalubamba, to help administer matters relating to the Property that is the seat of our
ancestor Munyati and its correlating office that is titled ‘Chief Nalubamba’, according to our
custom.
24. i a man am informed and believe that Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba served as the Prime
Minister of the Mbeza Royal Establishment/Nalubamba Chiefdom for approximately 30 years under
Bright Nalubamba, bearing the seal of that office and that he still has that seal and the original
Chief’s seal in his possession on account of this fact. Do you deny this?
25. i a man further claim that following the death of Bright Nalubamba Government offices
including the District Commissioner, Council Secretary, Zambia Police Officer-in-Charge Namwala
and Ministry of Chiefs and Traditional Affairs Namwala, were informed in a letter dated 30th June
2019 of the Royal Establishment’s decision that “all communications to and from received by your
office” would bear the signature of the Prime Minister Judge Chiimbwe (with his official seal
naturally affixed) “No more, no less”.
26. i a man claim that this no Government office can produce any evidence that this notice was
ever rescinded, replaced nor updated by the signatories that gave it. Do you deny this?
27. i a man am informed and believe that all Government offices – and the direct recipients of
the letter especially – thus remain beholden to its terms to this day, and are obligated to follow its
guidance on any matters that pertain to written communications regarding the Chieftaincy or
Chiefdom of Nalubamba. This means, Government offices are expected to do their due diligence
and receive and respond to communications bearing the signature of Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba
and bearing his seal as 30 year-known Prime Minister as the official communications of the
traditional leadership institution of the people of Nalubamba Chiefdom. Do you deny this?
28. i a man am informed and believe that, in line with its provision, unless otherwise stated by
the same original signatories of the original official notice, only communications bearing the
signature of Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba and the accompanying stamp of Prime Minister should
be considered as valid expressions of the will of the Nalubamba/Mbeza Royal Establishment,
particularly by the Government offices originally notified. Do you deny this?
29. Bright Nalubamba ruled as caretaker of the throne of Chief Nalubamba until June 2019,
when he died.
30. During a family meeting (lubeta) discussing the concluding of Bright Nalubamba’s funeral
on the night of June 15th, 2019, and chaired by Douglas Shingandu, the Bana Mwami (royal family)
decided by majority vote to not name a new chief immediately or even at the final lubeta the next
day, but to wait until the passing of 90 days before opening any discussion of succession in order to
allow for a sufficient period of mourning as was befitting for one of Bright Nalubamba’s stature. Do
you deny this?
31. Joseph Mwanambulo was present at the meeting mentioned above (26.).
32. On June 16th, 2019, during the final lubeta to mark the close of Bright Nalubamba's
funeral, actors known, including Joseph Mwanambulo, who was co-chairing the meeting, attempted
to make King Nalubamba chief, in contravention of the known royal family decision of the night
before. Do you deny this?
33. Trouble broke out at the lubeta as some parties tried to impose King Nalubamba on the
royal family as the new Chief Nalubamba. The elders of Mbeza and the royal family, the Bana
Mwami, protested with some violent confrontations, and the attempt to make King chief was
thwarted.
MAXIM: Qui primum peccat ille facit rixam. (GODB.) —He who first offends causes the
strife.
MAXIM: Quæ mala sunt inchoata in principio vix bono peragantur exitu. (4 COKE, 2.) —
Things bad in the commencement seldom end well.
Do you deny this?
34. Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba spoke against the breach of our customary laws that the
attempt to impose King on the family seat without the blessing of the royal family on the 16th of
June 2019 presented. He cited 3 main breaches of custom: 1. As customary 'father' and the head of
the Nalubamba royal family, he should have been consulted before anyone tried to name any son
of his as chief; 2. A son could not skip over his fathers and be made chief without their blessing;
and 3. The 'Bayuni' from Bweengwa, had no right to administer the chieftaincy of Nalubamba and
were being presumptuous in trying to anoint a Mwami for the Bana Munyati, by facilitating the
naming of King and acting as the Chiefdom’s Bakwashi.
MAXIM: Omne jus aut consensus fecit, aut necessitas constituit, aut firmavit consuetudo.
(DIG. 1 . 3.40)—Every law has either been created by consent, or established by necessity,
or confirmed by custom.
Do you deny this?
35. i a man claim that a caretaker chieftainship is not heritable, nor can it be passed on to
another by delegation.
MAXIM: Delegata potestas non potest delegari. (2 INST. 597.)—A delegated power cannot
be delegated.
Do you deny this?
36. i a man am informed and believe that a caretaker chief's son cannot inherit the
caretakership of a chieftaincy that was held by his late father. Do you deny this?
37. i a man claim that anyone claiming to have the right to inherit a chieftaincy that is known
by the community and elderly family members to be a caretakership, if aware, or upon becoming
aware, of the fact of its being such, acts with dishonesty in making such a claim. Do you deny this?
"36. … I consider that the courts should continue to apply that test and that your Lordships
should state that dishonesty requires knowledge by the defendant that what he was doing
would be regarded as dishonest by honest people, although he should not escape a finding
of dishonesty because he sets his own standards of honesty and does not regard as
dishonest what he knows would offend the normally accepted standards of honest
conduct."
- Lord Hutton in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 174
38. i a man claim that King Nalubamba cannot directly inherit the caretaker chieftaincy of
Senior Chief Nalubamba from his late father Bright Nalubamba based on our community’s customs.
39. i a man am informed and believe that according to Baila/Balundwe customary law,
succession to chieftaincy does not proceed from father to son. Do you deny this?
MAXIM: Non omni um qua a majoribns nostris constituta sunt ratio reddi potest. (DIG. 1 . 3.
20 )—A reason cannot be given for all the things which were instituted by our ancestors.
40. i a man claim that King could not inherit the chieftaincy from his father, even if his father
had not been a caretaker chief, based on our custom and tradition, and that this must be accepted
by all as fact and the custom upheld. Do you deny this?
MAXIM: (4 COKE, 38)—A reasonable custom is to be obeyed as law.
41. i a man am informed and believe that a son cannot skip over his father, according to
Baila/Balundwe custom, to take possession of his property when said father is unwilling to give it.
Do you deny this?
42. i a man claim that Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba is King's father according to our custom
and that King cannot 'jump over' him to take possession of his Property, the chieftaincy of
Nalubamba, either in the form of being Mwami or in the office of Chief Nalubamba, and that for
him to be made chief, he would have to be given it (kulukilwa) by his father Judge Chiimbwe
Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
43. i a man am informed and believe that one who does not honour basic customary law and
values, especially those of respect for his elders, and/or who even willfully violates them, cannot be
entrusted with safeguarding traditions and ensuring the preservation of any indigenous
community's culture as its chief. Do you deny this?
MAXIM: Decet tamen principen servare leges, qui bus, ipse salutus est. (WHART. 249.)—It
behooves indeed the prince to keep the laws by which he himself is preserved.
MAXIM: Lex non a rege est violanda. (JENK. CENT. 7)—The law should not be violated by
the king.
MAXIM: Quioquid est contra normam recti est injuria. (3 BULS. 313.)—Whatever is against
the rule of right is a wrong.
44. i a man am informed and believe that the Police were called to Mbeza from Nico and the
'announcement' of King's chiefship reversed publicly after the meeting of the 16th of June 2019
ended in chaos. Do you deny this?
45. i a man am informed and believe that, on the 16th of June 2019, a group of family
members supporting King secured a conversation with Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba in which they
prevailed on him to change the period of selection of the new chief from 90 days to 60 days. He
agreed (under duress, he asserts) and influenced by King's supporters, sent out a letter to the
District Commissioner of Namwala, Ms Mary Sakala, informing her of a selection event to be held
on the 18th of August 2019. Do you deny this?
46. King's supporters, i am informed and believe, learned from their failure to have him made
chief on the 15th of June 2019 and conspired to ensure technicalities were covered so as to have
him selected and named chief on 18th August 2018.
47. i a man am informed and believe that several parties, including Mukamadede
Munamooya, various headmen and family members, may have received financial and other
incentives to side with King during an aggressive campaign to drum up support for his run for the
chieftaincy that lasted between June 2019 and October 2019.
MAXIM: Male res se habet cum quo virtute effici debeat a tentatur pecunia. (LOFFT. 617) —
That is a bad case wherein one tries to accomplish with money that which should be
prompted by virtue.
48. i a man am informed and believe that a traditional family seat of authority cannot be
bought with money, nor is it won by campaign like a political position. It should be given to one
deemed worthy by its true custodians. Do you deny this?
49. i a man, with senior representatives of the Banaa Balombwana, Pawsen Munamooya
Nalubamba, Godfrey Munamooya Nalubamba, George Mukakanga Nalubamba, Judge Chiimbwe
Nalubamba, Kent Milumbe Nalubamba, with Douglas Shingandu visited the office of, and met with,
the District Commissioner of Namwala on the 16th of August 2019.
50. During said meeting with the District Commissioner and her District Joint Command (sic),
made up of the Officer-in-Charge Wildlife, Officer-in-Charge Corrections, Officer-in-Charge Zambia
Police and District Ministry of Chiefs and Traditional Affairs officer, all stationed at Namwala District,
the following was made clear: 1.) King Nalubamba was ineligible to become Chief based on our
community’s custom. 2.) The people responsible for determining succession were – all but 2 at the
time – against his attempt to be made chief and were present in that room for that meeting. 3.) The
Bakwashi (anointers) who alone could name a person as chief, verify his rightful succession, and
present the new chief to the community in keeping with custom were on the side of the elders, and
disapproved of King’s attempt to be named Chief. 4.) There were obviously 2 camps in the family
when it came to the matter of succession, one being the elders and the other being King and his
brothers and extended family. And 5.) There was potential for violence at the upcoming meeting
based on events of the 15th of June 2019, and the elders needed the DC’s intervention to help
keep the peace.
Conclusions reached during said meeting were that 1.) The meeting of the 18th of August should
best be used to set a way forward for the family rather than proceeding to be a selection event as
parties had been earlier notified; 2.) Anticipating that some unauthorised individual would likely be
put forward for the Bakwashi, that no selection of chief would be accepted to be legitimate by the
District’s Government officers if the rightfully authorised Bakwashi – represented by Jacobo
Hamwacili – did not declare that selected chief to have been selected by themselves; 3.) The DC,
having received an invitation letter from Chooye Nalubamba to the selection event, and thus being
in possession of 2 separate invitations, would, on the strength of those 2 invitations, convey an
instruction that the two factions sit down, discuss the matter exhaustively, and only then inform the
District of who the incoming chief would be. 4.) Ms. Sakala affirmed that she would convey these
conclusions to Mr Chipeta in Choma so that he would be aware of dynamics as he travelled to
Mbeza on the 18th of August, two days later.
51. On the night of August 16th, 2019, all but two of the senior-most of the Banaa
Balombwana, Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, George Mukakanga Nalubamba, Pawsen Munamooya
Nalubamba, Godfrey Munamooya Nalubamba, Kent Milumbe, being the majority of eligible
custodians of the seat of Nalubamba, along with Martin Muuluka, gathered at the home of Martin
Muuluka to discuss the selection of the next Mwami.
52. During the meeting of the senior Banaa Balombwana referenced above, the known
custodians of the seat of Nalubamba elected Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba as Mwami; the Mwami
who, naturally, would bear the title and become the possessor of the property that is the office of
‘Chief Nalubamba’.
MAXIM: Quod talem eligi faciat qui melius et sciat et velit , et possit officio illio intendere.
(TAYLER, 441.)—That person should be chosen who best understands and is willing and
able to perform the duty of the office.
Theft Act 1968 5.(1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having
possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an
equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).
53. Being informed and believing that King and a faction of his supporters were planning on
having him selected and named as Chief on the 18th of August 2019, the elders named above
decided against allowing the 18th to devolve into another violent confrontation. They resolved to
turn the scheduled Selection meeting of the 18th of August into a family gathering to iron out the
succession dispute that was in full flight by this point. They resolved to halt proceeding with the
selection of a new Mwami/chief on that day and even to hold back on the announcement that
Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba had been selected as Mwami on the 16th of August, intending to put
it off until such a time as harmony was restored within the family.
54. On the morning of August 18th, 2019, the leadership group of senior Banaa Balombwana
made their way to Mwachisowa Chambers in Mbeza with the intention of drawing out King's party
for a face-to-face discussion that they hoped would reunite the family by settling the succession
question.
55. i a man am informed and believe that Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba requested that King's
party come out to meet the elders at the Mwachisowa Chambers, speaking to, among others, the
Namwala District Zambia Police Officer-in-Charge who was present at the event’s venue, the
Ndandala grounds, less than 1KM away.
56. Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, the senior Banaa Balombwana and Bakwashi, were tricked
into going to the Ndandala grounds where the selection gathering was in full swing for the naming
of King Nalubamba as chief, by being told they would be able to have the intended discussion from
there.
57. Joseph Mwanambulo chaired the selection meeting of the 18th of August 2019.
58. i a man am informed and believe that King’s party attempted to deal with the technical
failures of their previous attempt to seat King on the chieftaincy on the 15th of June 2019 by making
sure they had someone stand in as King’s 'father', having the right to forfeit the chieftaincy and give
his name to the Bakwashi, and another to stand for the Bakwashi, who alone can name/present a
selected chief to the community.
MAXIM: Omne actum ab intentione agentis est judicandum ; a voluntate procedit causa vitii
atque virtutis. (JUR. CW . ) —Every act is to be estimated by the intention of the doer; the
cause of vice and virtue proceeds from the will.
Do you deny this?
59. i a man claim that those orchestrating the event of King's selection on the 18th and those
playing the roles identified above from among King's party of supporters, were doing so with full
awareness that they did not have the blessings or consent of the true custodians of the Bana
Munyati’s traditional seat – the senior Banaa Balombwana – nor did they possess the rights to
administer its affairs even as they did. Do you deny this?
60. i a man claim that most, if not all, parties involved in this matter (i.e., Respondents as
herein named) are aware of the identities and customary roles and responsibilities of the true
custodians of the seat of Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
61. i a man claim that all parties involved are aware that Judge Chiimbwe is the head of the
Nalubamba royal family and possessor of the seat of Nalubamba by seniority and by virtue of the
names he has inherited in accordance with African customary law.
MAXIM: Non possessori incumbit necessitas probandi possessi on es ad se pertinere. (BR.

174)—The necessity of proving possession of his own property is not incumbent upon the
owner.
Do you deny this?
62. i a man am informed and believe that all parties involved know who the senior Banaa
Balombwana are and that the right to name a successor to the seat of their ancestor is theirs before
it can be any other’s.
MAXIM: Ignorance of those things which one is bound to know does not excuse.
Do you deny this?
63. i a man am informed and believe that the senior members among King's supporters know
who the true qualified Bakwashi of our indigenous community are, and that only those known
individuals have the right to announce and present the true successor to the seat of Nalubamba to
the people (kukwata).
MAXIM: Scire et scire debere æquiparantur in jure. (TRAY. 551.)—What one knows, and
what one ought to know are regarded in law as equivalent.
Do you deny this?
64. Key individuals gave voice to our opposition to the proceedings of the 18th of August
2019. Pawsen Munamooya Nalubamba and George Mukakanga Nalubamba – two senior Banaa
Balombwana – addressed the gathering and appealed for the two camps to sit and discuss the
matter of succession so that the opposing parties could come to a common understanding before
proceeding with the selection of anyone as Chief. Do you deny this?
65. The meeting's chairman, Joseph Mwanambulo, opposed the appeals of Pawsen
Munamooya Nalubamba and George Mukakanga Nalubamba and ignored their pleas for reason. A
mob of King's supporters also opposed their proposals with shouting.
66. Mukamadede Munamooya stepped forward to represent a ‘father of King’; later it was
claimed that she did so speaking for Munamooya – Nalubamba’s brother – as bearer of his spirit,
and that it was thus that she could forfeit the chieftaincy and give ‘her son’ to the Bakwashi to be
named as Mwami in her stead. Do you deny this?
67. The members of the royal family present, specifically the senior Banaa Balombwana,
objected to what she was doing and questioned how Mukamadede could stand as King's father,
when his ‘fathers’ – standing in opposition to his being put forward to be selected – were really and
truly present.
MAXIM: Qui non improbat, approbat. (3 INST. 27.) —He who does not blame, approves.
Do you deny this?
68. It was clear by the composition of the groups supporting and opposing King during the
meeting of the 18th of August 2019 that the majority of King's 'fathers' were clearly in opposition to
his being presented to be named as chief. Do you deny this?
69. i a man am informed and believe that the fact of simply being Nalubamba's brother
would not give Munamooya the right to administer Nalubamba's property without permission from
70. i a man claim that the bwami/chieftaincy is Nalubamba's, not Munamooya's. Do you deny
this?
71. i a man am informed and believe that having inherited the name of Nalubamba, Judge
Chiimbwe Nalubamba, by custom is Nalubamba. As such, if anyone should give the name of a son
who can sit on the seat of Nalubamba as Mwami to the Bakwashi it should be him, and not
Mukamadede, while claiming to be acting for Munamooya, Nalubamba's brother. Do you deny
this?
72. i a man am informed and believe that the true inheritor of the Munamooya name/spirit
and role is Douglas Shingandu. Do you deny this?
73. i a man am informed and believe that one claiming to be Munamooya cannot name a son
of Nalubamba to the seat of Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
74. i a man am informed and believe that one claiming to be Munamooya, if such a one was
truly such, could only name a son of Munamooya to a seat of Munamooya’s. Do you deny this?
75. i a man claim that Munamooya does not possess a seat of chieftaincy. As such,
Munamooya has no such seat to give away. Do you deny this?
76. i a man am informed and believe that if indeed King Nalubamba, as a son of
Munamooya, was given any seat by Mukamadede acting for Munamooya on the 18th of August,
that seat, whatever it may be, is not the chieftaincy of Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
77. i a man claim that Mukamadede Munamooya had no standing and no right to act as
Munamooya and that she deceptively took on a role she had not customary authority to take on,
the inheritor of Munamooya’s role, name and spirit – Douglas Shingandu – being both still alive and
present at the event. Do you deny this?
78. i a man claim that Mukamadede had no standing and no right to give King's name to the
Bakwashi ‘as a father’ as she lacked the customary authority to do so on account of the fact that her
‘older brother’ Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, head of the Bana Mwami, was both still alive and
present at the selection event. Do you deny this?
79. i a man claim that the act of Mukamadede's giving King’s name to anyone to have him
named as chief ‘in her place as a father’, giving away or forfeiting the right to chieftaincy to him, on
18th August 2019 is null and void, as she did not possess that right but that, that right belonged
solely to Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba as head of the Bana Mwami and inheritor of the name/spirit
of Mwanang’ambwa Muuluka the first registered Chief Nalubamba.
MAXIM: Nullus jus alienum forisfacere potest. (FLETA, 1 . 28.)—No man can forfeit the right
of another.
MAXIM: Nemo dat qui non habet. (JENK.CENT.)—No one gives who does not possess
Do you deny this?
80. i a man claim that any acts built upon, dependent upon, or conducted after, the void act
of Mukamadede’s ‘giving’ of her ‘son’ to be named as Chief Nalubamba, and that pertain to any
subsequent parts of a ceremony for the selecting of a chief according to Baila custom, are, likewise,
null and void.
MAXIM: Non dat qui contra leges dat. (LOFFT, 258.) —He gives nothing who gives contrary
to law.
MAXIM: Quæ accessionum locum obtinent extinguuntur cum principales res peremptæ
fuerint . (DIG. 33. 8. 2) —Things which hold the place of accessories are extinguished when
the principal things are destroyed.
Do you deny this?
81. As such i a man claim that the coronation event held for King Nalubamba in October 2019
and that is based on King’s having received the rights to chiefship from Mukamadede Munamooya
is null and void, as it was based on a false premise. As such King Nalubamba was not legitimately
crowned as Chief Nalubamba.
Do you deny this?
82. i a man claim that any entry in any record anywhere that reflects the registration of King
Nalubamba as Chief Nalubamba that is based on his having received the rights to chiefship from
Mukamadede Munamopoya is likewise, null and void as a matter of fact. King Nalubamba did not
qualify to be registered as Chief Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
83. i a man claim that the Bakwashi of Nalubamba are represented by the elders Jacobo
Hamwacili and James Chimbozi, who are of the lineage of the true Bakwashi, with Jacobo
Hamwacili having inherited the name and customary functions of the Bakwashi who anointed Simon
Chiimbwe in 1972, and that only they had the right to proceed with presenting anyone as Chief on
that day.
MAXIM: Fiat prout fieri consuerit; nil temere novandum. (JENK. CENT. 116)—Let it be done
even as it is accustomed to be done; let nothing be innovated rashly.
Do you deny this?
84. During the selection meeting of the 18th of August, when an unknown individual was
presented as a representative of the Bakwashi, James Chimbozi and others expressed concern, and
tried to compromise with King’s party by suggesting that this individual, later identified as
Muchemba Hakoola, and the known Mukwashi, Jacobo Hamwacili, should confer in private in the
west (kumbo) for a few minutes, and come to a common understanding, before any selection could
proceed and anyone could be named as chief. Do you deny this?
85. The suggested meeting of the elderly Bakwashi and Muchemba Hakoola was at first
agreed to, but subsequently ignored, by the chairman of the meeting Joseph Mwanambulo, with
the rowdy mob supporting him, even after reminders from the senior Banaa Balombwana.
MAXIM: Bona fides exigit ut quod convenit fiat. (DIG. 19. 20. 21.)—Good faith demands
that what is agreed upon shall be done.
Do you deny this?
86. i a man claim that Muchemba Hakoola was not recognised by the elders of the Banaa
Balombwana and the Bakwashi as being a representative for the Bakwashi.
MAXIM: Culpa est immiscere se rei ad se non pertinenti. (2 INST. 444.)—It is a fault to
meddle with what does not belong to you.
MAXIM: Sæpe viatorem nova, non vetus orbita fallit. (4 INST. 34.)—Often it is the new track,
not the old one, which deceives the traveler.
Do you deny this?
87. Amidst shouts from Pawsen Munamooya Nalubamba and others questioning upon whose
authority he was acting, and while ignoring the known elderly Bakwashi of the Nalubambas -
Jacobo Hamwacili and James Chimbozi - Muchemba Hakoola unilaterally made a statement in
which he announced the name of King Nalubamba as chief.
MAXIM: Quæ præter consuetudinem et morem majorum fiunt, neque placent, neque recta
videntur (4 COKE, 78)—Things which are done contrary to the custom and usage of our
ancestors, neither please nor appear right.
88. Muchemba Hakoola's announcement of King as chief did not have the support of the
senior Banaa Balombwana of the Bana Mwami or of the known elderly Bakwashi. They clearly and
loudly voiced their opposition and protested.
MAXIM: Reservatio ut et protestatio non tacit jus, sed tuetur. (TRAY.)—Reservation and
protest do not create a right but protect a right.
MAXIM: An error which is not resisted, is approved.
Do you deny this?
89. Muchemba Hakoola, purporting to speak for the Bakwashi, did not once consult Judge
Chiimbwe as the owner of the chieftaincy (bwami) of Nalubamba about naming King Nalubamba as
Mwami or as Chief Nalubamba and by thus doing transferring his property to him.
MAXIM: Nihil tam conveniens est naturali aequitati, quam voluntatem domini rem suam
in alium transferre, ratum habere. (1 COKE, 100.)—Nothing is so consonant to natural equity
as to regard the wish of the owner in transferring his own property to another.
Do you deny this?
90. Failing to have their voice, objections and concerns heard, and in an attempt to stop the
illegitimate selection of the wrong chief by wrong players, the Bakwashi, represented by the
mukwashi Jacobo Hamwacili, were urged to promptly publicly show Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba’s
prior selection as Mwami.
91. As King's supporters were beginning to celebrate his ‘selection’, the known mukwashi
Jacobo Hamwacili quickly presented Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba (kukwata) as Mwami Nalubamba
amid the gathering, putting his hands on his person in customary fashion, thus, in full view of
everyone, making it clear that two chiefs were shown to be selected that day; one, by the known
customary officer and the other, by an unknown, unqualified individual. Do you deny this?
92. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba attempted to escort Judge

Chiimbwe Nalubamba into the house where the anointing ceremony for the new Mwami was
supposed to be conducted, at the same time as King’s party was rushing King into the house.
93. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba, along with Judge Chiimbwe

Nalubamba was physically, forcefully blocked from entering the house prepared for ceremonial
anointing, with Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba being shoved off his trajectory to the door by
Choolwe Nalubamba, King Nalubamba's brother. Fearing for our safety Judge Chiimbwe
Nalubamba and i retreated from attempting to have him ceremonially anointed and recognised as
Mwami that day, though he has verily been the Mwami of Mbeza since that time.
94. i a man am informed and believe that one's having louder supporters and using force to
overshadow or block the legitimate anointing of another as Mwami does not negate the rightful
selection or presentation (kukwatwa) of that Mwami, when carried out by the right customary
officers, regardless of how much quieter or fewer in number that Mwami’s supporters may be.
MAXIM: Multitudo errantium non parit errori patrocinium. (11 COKE, 75.)—The multitude of
those who err gives no excuse for error.
Do you deny this?
95. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba, immediately after these events, on the

18th of August 2019, registered the objections of the elders to the wrongful announcement of King
Shimumbo Nalubamba as the new chief with Mr Chipeta, the Provincial Ministry of Chiefs and
Traditional Affairs officer present and others in his party; pointing out improprieties in the conduct
of events, showing him the correct and authorised Bakwashi – and the mukwashi Jacobo Hamwacili
specifically – and confirming the fact that two chiefs had, in effect, been witnessed to have been
selected that day.
96. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba claim that Mr Chipeta and his party

acknowledged having understood that they had clearly witnessed two different people being
shown to have been selected as chief that day, one being King Nalubamba – by illegitimate players
– and the the other being Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, by the banaa balombwana and the rightful
mukwashi Jacobo Hamwacili.
97. i a man am informed and believe that this fact in itself should have been sufficient to
prevent the registration of King Nalubamba with the Government as Chief Nalubamba pending a
full inquiry to ascertain the truth of who should be registered as Chief Nalubamba, had the
Government officials responsible for vetting a selection and seeing through the registration been
truly impartial.
99. i a man claim that Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba is the rightful Mwami of the Bana Munyati of
Mbeza who should be holding the Government-facing office of Chief Nalubamba, his Bwami
(chiefship) being legitimately conferred on him on the 18th of August 2019 based on the following:
1) He was selected to be Mwami by a majority of those with the uncontested first right to select the
Mwami, 4 out of the 7 living grandsons of Nalubamba, on the 16th of August 2019; 2) He was
selected through the right method, that being in a gathering of the senior most potential heirs to
the seat, the Banaa Balombwana, meeting privately amongst themselves; and 3) His name was
given to, and he was presented (kukwatwa) by, the right customary officer, Jacobo Hamwacili,
eldest of the Bakwashi, inheritor of the name of the most recent mukwashi of the last Mwami
selected in 1972, Simon Chiimbwe; 4) He was ceremonially ‘anointed’ (kukwatwa) at the right forum:
a public gathering of the community, on the date published for the same, 18th August 2019, all in
accordance with our customary law. Do you deny this?
100. i a man claim and am informed and believe that Muchemba Hakoola had no standing to
represent the Bakwashi and 'kwata’ (i.e. anoint) King to the seat of Nalubamba as he never inherited
the role of mukwashi (i.e., anointer) from its last known customary holder, the Mukwashi who
anointed Simon Chiimbwe in 1972. Do you deny this?
101. i a man claim that Muchemba Hakoola's anointing (kukwata), of King Nalubamba as chief
of the bana Munyati or as Chief Nalubamba, lacking as it does the customary authority of the
inherited function of a mukwashi, is null and void. Do you deny this?
102. As such i a man claim that the coronation event held for King Nalubamba in October 2019
that was based on Muchemba Hakoola’s having presented or anointed King Nalubamba as chief is
null and void, as it was based on a false premise.
Do you deny this?
103. i a man claim that any entry in any record anywhere that reflects the registration of King
Nalubamba as Chief Nalubamba as based on Muchemba Hakoola’s having presented or anointed
King Nalubamba as chief is likewise, null and void as a matter of fact. Do you deny this?
104. i a man claim that the naming and selection of King Nalubamba as conducted by
Mukamadede Munamooya and Muchemba Hakoola, being done by two individuals without
standing and thus being null and void, makes their actions, and anything subsequently dependent
on their actions, during the meeting of 18th August 2019, improper and invalid; meaning that, as
either of them could neither legitimately nor rightfully either forfeit the rights to the chieftaincy
(kulukila), name, or anoint a chief for the Bana Mwami of Mbeza, their actions on the 18th of August
2019 did not make King Nalubamba chief, and that he knows it.
MAXIM: Rei turpis nullum mandatum est. (DIG. 17. 1 . 6. 3.) —A mandate of an illegal thing
is void.
MAXIM: False in one thing, false in all things.
MAXIM: Culpa tenet suos auctores. (ERSK. INST. 4 1 . 14. )—A fault binds its own authors.
Do you deny this?

105. i a man claim that the naming and selection of King Nalubamba as chief being improper
and invalid, the supporting legitimising acts being conducted by unqualified individuals and parties,
his installation as Chief Nalubamba in October 2019 is fraudulent and a nullity; and that he acquired
neither the title of Mwami nor the right to the use of the office of Chief Nalubamba, these both
remaining the property of Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba by default; meaning that King Nalubamba
holds the office of Chief Nalubamba illegally and by larceny.
MAXIM: The owner of property is not divested of his title by a larceny of it. (5 LANS. N. Y.
416)
MAXIM: A piratis aut latronibus capti liberi permanent. (DIG. 49. 15. 19.2)—Things do not
change their ownership when captured by pirates and robbers.
MAXIM: Sublate fundamente cadit epus. (JENK. CENT.)—Remove the foundation, the work
falls.
Do you deny this?
106. i a man claim that no Government office or official can produce a letter of invitation to the
coronation of King Shimumbo Nalubamba as Chief Nalubamba that bears the signature of Judge
Chiimbwe Nalubamba nor his stamp as Prime Minister, as per communicated notice given to
Government offices and officials by the Royal Establishment regarding the Chiefdom’s official mode
of communication on 30th June 2019.
107. i a man claim that an invitation dated 26th September 2019 to King Nalubamba’s coronation
event slated for 13th October 2019, sent to the People of the Chiefdom and assumed to have been
received by some Government officials who were in attendance of the event, did not bear either
the signature or the stamp of the Prime Minister and was not made by a known office bearer.
108. As such, i am informed and believe that this invitation – said to originate from Joseph
Mwanambulo – being void, any conclusions reached at the event as conducted on its strength –
including the public recognition of King Nalubamba as Chief Nalubamba – are a nullity. Do you
deny this?
109. i a man claim that King Nalubamba was not righfully named or selected as Mwami of the
Bana Mwami of Mbeza by the people able to confer that honour upon him – Judge Chiimbwe
Nalubamba, George Mukakanga Nalubamba, Godfrey Munamooya, Pawsen Munamooya, Kent
Milumbe, Chooye Chikkabe, Desai Nalubamba with Martin Muuluka Chivwindi (by unanimous or
majority decision) and the Mukwashi Jacobo Hamwacili with James Chimbozi Chivula at any point in
time, neither before nor on the 18th of August 2019, nor any time since then.
MAXIM: Things grounded upon an ill and void beginning cannot have a good perfection.
(FINCH, LAW. 1. 3. 8.)
Do you deny this?
110. i a man claim that one who is not named Mwami of the Bana Munyati by the senior Banaa
Balombwana of the royal family of Nalubamba aforenamed and their bakwashi is not true Mwami of
Mbeza and cannot be legitimately registered with the Government of the Republic of Zambia as the
bearer of the office of Chief Nalubamba. Anyone holding this office without the customary authority
that would qualify him to hold it represents only himself, holds himself out to be Chief falsely, and
has obtained the office and its benefits by false pretenses.
MAXIM: Si suggestio non sit vera, literæ patentes vacuaæ sunt . (10 COKE, 113.)—If the
suggestion of a patent is false, the patent itself is void.
Do you deny this?
111. i a man claim that the title and office of ‘Chief Nalubamba’ are the rightful correlative
properties of the Mwami of the Bana Munyati of Mbeza.
MAXIM: Totius navis proprietas carinæ causam sequitur. (DIG. 6. 1. 61.)—The proprietorship
of the whole ship follows the ownership of the keel.
Do you deny this?
112. i a man claim that King Nalubamba has no right to use the title and office of Chief
Nalubamba, as such rights have not been conferred on him by either Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba,
the majority of the senior Banaa Balombwana or the Mukwashi Jacobo Hamwacili, the custodians of
the ancestral seat of Munyati, as they have not named him Mwami.
MAXIM: Unumquodque principiorum est sibimetipsi fides; et perspi cua vera non aunt
probanda. (COKE, LITT. 1 1. b.)—Every principle is its own evidence, and plain truths are
not to be proved.
Do you deny this?
113. I a man claim that, knowing that he is not the rightfully selected Mwami as anointed by the
Mukwashi Jacobo Hamwacili and elected by the senior Banaa Balombwana of the bana Mwami of
Mbeza; said Mwami who alone should hold the office of Chief Nalubamba, and yet representing
himself falsely as such – whether in words or deeds – before Government officials who, based on
that representation, have registered him as Chief Nalubamba; and through this registration being in
regular receipt of the Government stipend allotted to Chiefs, King Nalubamba has obtained – and
continues to obtain – property (i.e., office, benefits and money) by false pretenses; i a man am
informed and believe that by so doing King Nalubamba is both defrauding the Government of the
Republic of Zambia and stealing from the rightfully selected Mwami and royal family of the
indigenous community of Mbeza.
404(1) A false pretense is a representation, either by words or otherwise, of a matter of fact
either present or past, which representation is known to the person making it to be false,
and which is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act
upon such representation. – Criminal Code Canada, referenced by Supreme Court of
Canada in The Queen v. Hemingway, [1955] S.C.R. 712
405. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence… who, … by any false pretense, either
directly or through the medium of any contract obtained by such false pretense, obtains
anything capable of being stolen, … - Criminal Code Canada, referenced by Supreme Court
of Canada in The Queen v. Hemingway, [1955] S.C.R. 712
“The words in s. 405 "anything capable of being stolen" are of wider import and this is
emphasized by the language of ss. 344 and 347 of the Criminal Code, where, as already
intimated, theft is defined in terms more comprehensive than at common law or under any
of the statutory provisions in Great Britain. In s. 344 it is provided:
Every inanimate thing whatever which is the property of any person …is capable of being
stolen…
and the provisions of s. 347 read, in part, as follows:
347. Theft or stealing is the act of fraudulently and without colour of right taking, or
fraudulently and without colour of right converting to the use of any person, anything
capable of being stolen, with intent,
(a) to deprive the owner, or any person having any special property or interest therein,
temporarily or absolutely of such thing or of such property or interest;” - The Queen v.
Hemingway, [1955] S.C.R. 712
“Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation
as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or
anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive,
convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).” – Fraud Act
2006
1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another

with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ; and " thief " and " steal" shall
be construed accordingly. – Theft Act 1968
Do you deny this?
114. i a man claim that the office of Chief Nalubamba has been stolen and is in a state of capture
on account of how King Shimumbo Nalubamba secured registration with the Republic of Zambia as
its holder against the will of both its customary seat’s true custodians and its true customary owner,
these being the living grandsons of Muuluka Mwanang’ambwa – the first registered Chief
Nalubamba – and the indigenous community’s rightfully selected Mwami, Judge Chiimbwe
115. i a man claim that the men or women who put forward the name of King Nalubamba to
be registered with the Ministry of Chiefs and Traditional Affairs (MOCTA) as Chief Nalubamba,
acting in their capacity as public officials of the Republic of Zambia, acted in error, as they had
someone registered who has not been conferred with the correlative community headship on which
the holding of that office is based. Do you deny this?
116. i a man claim that both Provincial (Mr Chipeta) and District (Ms Sakala – Namwala DC, Mr
Lishomwa – Namwala District Chiefs Officer, and the Namwala Zambia Police Officer-in-charge)
were well aware, before and after the events of 18th August 2019, that King Nalubamba was not
legitimately selected as Chief by the parties responsible for the selection – the Mukwashi Jacobo
Hamwacili and the senior Banaa Balombwana: Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, Godfrey Munamooya
Nalubamba, Pawsen Munamooya Nalubamba, George Mukakanga Nalubamba, Kent Milumbe, with
Martin Muuluka Chivwindi; and that they ignored this information and vetted King Nalubamba for
registration anyway. Do you deny this?
117. I a man claim that no Government office either at District, Provincial or Headquarter levels,
can produce an official notification of King Nalubamba’s selection as Chief Nalubamba from the
Mbeza Royal Establishment in the manner prescribed in their letter of the 30th of June 2019, i.e.,
through an official communication bearing the signature and accompanying stamp of the Prime
Minister Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba. Do you deny this?
118. i a man claim that the vetting of King Nalubamba with MOCTA Headquarters for
registration is suspect, in the light of available information that the responsible parties at District
and Provincial levels had before that point; information that disputed and disproved King’s
eligibility for succession in the first place, showed who the rightful customary officers were and how
they stood in opposition to his claims, and even warned them of the modus that would likely be
used to attempt to legitimate King’s selection (i.e., the probable presentation of a false
mukwashi/anointer), by men whose claims and roles were easy to authenticate and who were
demonstrably the legitimate and rightful conveyers of the chiefship of Nalubamba and custodians
of its succession – way in advance of any possible submission of his name to Ministry of Chiefs and
Traditional Affairs for registration as Chief Nalubamba.
119. i a man claim that the manner in which issues raised long before King Nalubamba was
registered with, and given the office of Chief Nalubamba by, the Ministry of Chiefs and Traditional
Affairs were ignored, and the way the in which the elders who raised them were side-lined is
suspicious and suggests possible corruption and misconduct by the public servants involved, in
collaboration with King Nalubamba, and must be investigated.
120. i a man claim that, in the light of the fact that Government had a letter stating that all
communications from the Chiefdom would bear the stamp of the Prime Minister and the signature
of Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba and that no invitation bearing these 2 things was sent out by the
Mbeza Royal Establishment through its official channels for the same, the gracing of King
Nalubamba’s so-called coronation event by Minister of Health Chitalu Chilufya as Guest of Honor is
unusual and highly suspect and must be investigated, as I am informed and believe that the two
were personal friends at the time, both Dr Chilufya and King Nalubamba being members of the
Patriotic Front.
121. i a man am informed and believe that no person or institution has the authority to confer
recognition on a chief outside of the individuals and institutions responsible for naming, selecting,
and recognising that chief within the community to whom the chiefship applies, according to the
Constitution of Zambia, as cited below:
165. (1) The institution of chieftaincy and traditional institutions

are guaranteed and shall exist in accordance with the culture,
customs and traditions of the people to whom they apply.
(2) Parliament shall not enact legislation which—

(a) confers on a person or authority the right to recognise or
withdraw the recognition of a chief; or
(b) derogates from the honour and dignity of the institution of
chieftaincy.
MAXIM: Optima est legum interpres censuotudo. (DIG. 1 . 3. 37.)—Custom is the best
interpreter of laws
Do you deny this?
122. i a man am informed and believe that the State no longer gazettes Chiefs or recognises
them by way of statutory instruments or any other means, in line with the Constitutional Court
judgment of 27th November 2019 (2018/CCZ/0013) that reads in part, “In summing up we declare
sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Chiefs Act to be inconsistent with Article 165 of the Constitution as
amended and are therefore unconstitutional and void. We order that they be expunged from the
statute book.” (pp. 23, 24). Do you deny this?
The expunged sections are cited below for the avoidance of ambiguity:
3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the President may, by statutory order,
recognise any person as being, within the area in Zambia specified in the order, the
holder of-
(a) the office of Litunga of the Western Province or of any other chiefly office
in the Western Province specified in the order;
(b) the office of Paramount Chief, Senior Chief, Chief or Sub-Chief.
(2) No person shall be recognised under this section as the holder of an office
unless-
(a) the President is satisfied that such person is entitled to hold the office
under African customary law; and
(b) in the case of a chiefly office in the Western Province, other than the
office of Litunga, the person to whom recognition is accorded is recognised
by the Litunga and traditional council to be a member of a ruling family in
the Western Province.
4. (1) The President may, by statutory order, withdraw the recognition accorded to any
person under this Act if, after due inquiry, he is satisfied that-
(a) the person has ceased to be entitled under African customary law to hold
the office in respect of which recognition was accorded; or
(b the withdrawal of the recognition accorded to the person is necessary in
the interests of peace, order and good government.
(2) Where the President deems it expedient to inquire or cause inquiry to be made
into the question of the withdrawal of the recognition accorded to a person under
this Act, he may, by statutory order, suspend the recognition so accorded until such
time as the inquiry has been completed and the President has made a decision on
the question.
5. The President may appoint a person or persons to inquire into any question relating
to the recognition of any person under this Act or the withdrawal of the recognition
accorded to any such person and, on the completion of the inquiry, to report and
make recommendations thereon to the President.
6. (1) After consultation with a Chief and his traditional councillors, the President may,
by statutory order-
(a) appoint any person as the deputy to that Chief; and
(b) subject to the provisions of subsection (2), transfer to the person so
appointed, for such period as the order remains in force, all or any of the
functions of the office of that Chief.
(2) The traditional functions of the office of a Chief under African customary law shall
not be transferred under this section to a Deputy Chief except to the extent that
such functions may competently be discharged under African customary law by a
person other than a Chief.
7. (1) Where the recognition accorded to a person as a Chief or the appointment of a

person as a Deputy Chief has been withdrawn or revoked under this Act, and the
President is satisfied that the presence of such person in any area would be
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in that area, the President may, by
notice under his hand, prohibit such person from being within the area specified in
the notice on and after a date specified in the notice, except in such circumstances
and on such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notice.
(2) As soon as the President is satisfied that the necessity for the prohibition
contained in a notice given under subsection (1) no longer exists, he shall cancel it
by further notice under his hand.
(3) A notice given under this section shall be served personally on the person to
whom it relates or, if he cannot be found, shall be published in the Gazette.
(4) Any person who contravenes the provisions of a notice in force under subsection
(1) shall, for every such contravention, be guilty of an offence and liable on
conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.
123. I a man claim that no man can produce any evidence that the registration of King
Nalubamba as Chief Nalubamba has been published in the Government Gazette and enjoys any
special recognition or protections as a result. Do you deny this?
124. i a man claim that a constitutionally qualifying community’s Government-registered Chief

should be the indigenous community’s rightfully selected ruler, in our case, this is our Mwami. Do
you deny this?
125. i a man am informed and believe that no attendance by dignitaries, e.g., Chiefs,
Ministers, Government officials, etc., of an installation or coronation event magically makes a
wrongfully acquired chieftaincy legitimate. The error is their won in not doing their due diligence.
MAXIM: Multitudo errantium non parit errori patrocinium. (11 COKE, 75.)—The multitude of
those who err gives no excuse for error.
Do you deny this?
126. i a man claim that an appeal to external authorities' or dignitaries' presence at an

installation event as in itself giving legitimacy to a chieftaincy that has not been given, but clearly
has been rejected, by a community’s senior elders, is misplaced at best, dishonest at worst. Do you
deny this?
127. i a man claim that no indigenous community can be forced by a Government office,
ministry, or department to acquiesce to a wrongfully registered Chiefship/Chieftaincy, as that
violates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ principle of the right
to self-determination as contained in UN Resolution 61/295. Do you deny this?
UNDRIP Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue
of that right they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
UNDRIP Article 4 (partial)

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination,
have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to
their internal and local affairs…
128. i a man claim that the senior most elders of my community – the Banaa Balombwana and
the Mukwashi – have the right to demand of the appropriate Government Ministry the correction of
its official record of who Chief Nalubamba is, by the removal of a wrongfully registered individual
and the registration of their rightfully selected Mwami as Chief. Do you deny this?
129. i a man claim that the denial of a rightfully conferred and recognised indigenous
community headship (which, in our case, is called ‘Mwami’), as confirmed by those who are its
custodians, to one who claims to be chief, immediately disqualifies one from being able to be
registered as Chief, and is clear evidence that one’s claim to be such is false. Do you deny this?
130. i a man claim that King Nalubamba’s claim to being Chief, lacking as it does the rightfully
conferred correlating headship of the Bana Muyati of Mbeza – that of Mwami – which has not been
given to King by its custodians, the grandsons of Nalubamba, is a falsity. Do you deny this?
131. i a man claim that anyone who claims to be a Chief among the Baila/Balundwe, but who
does not have the support and blessing of the senior most living descendants of the community's
founding Mwami and senior, elderly Bakwashi is not truly that community's Mwami and cannot
legitimately be its Government-registered Chief.
MAXIM: Via antiqua via est tuta. (1 JOHNS. CH. N. Y. 527.)—The old way is the safe way.
Do you deny this?
132. i a man claim that one who places himself on the seat of a community’s Chief without
the support of his elders is breaking, and shows a blatant disdain for, African customary law – as
African society is an age-based society built solidly on respect for, and leadership by, our elders –
and that such a one is a lawbreaker.
MAXIM: Mos pro lege. (TAYLER, 321.)—Custom stands for law.
Do you deny this?
133. i a man am informed and believe that King Nalubamba, a man, has violated
Baila/Balundwe customary law by having himself presented as, and claiming to be, Chief
Nalubamba, against his fathers’ wishes and without their blessing or consent, 'skipping over' Judge
Chiimbwe Nalubamba, his father by custom. Therefore, by his own actions, he disqualifies himself
from being able to be considered to occupy the office of Chief Nalubamba even by special
exception. Do you deny this?
MAXIM: Consuetude est altera lex. (4COKE, 21)—Custom is a second law.
MAXIM: Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vek fraudem petatur, malum et injustum
efficitur. (3 COKE, 78)—What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud,
becomes bad and unjust.
MAXIM: Quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur. (4 COKE, 31.)—What is done contrary
to law is regarded as not done.
134. i a man claim that Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba was initially selected to accede the
traditional seat of sovereign authority of the family of Nalubamba as Mwami over the Bana Munyati
(and with it the office of Senior Chief Nalubamba) by the senior most Banaa Balombwana of the
Nalubamba family on August 16th, 2019.
135. The Banaa Balombwana responsible for selecting Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba as Mwami
on August 16th, 2019, were the men George Mukakanga Nalubamba, Pawsen Munamooya
Nalubamba, Godfrey Munamooya Nalubamba, Kent Milumbe with Martin Muuluka.
136. i a man claim that the above-named men are grandsons of Nalubamba, and are of the
generation with the exclusive, incontestable right, currently, to select the successor to the seat of
137. i a man claim that in a subsequent meeting of the Banaa Balombwana that had wider
generational representation on 7th January 2021, with all the aforenamed senior Banaa Balombwana
except Kent Milumbe and George Mukakanga Nalubamba again present, the selection of Judge
Chiimbwe Nalubamba as Mwami was reconfirmed and ratified.
MAXIM: Omnis ratihabitio retro trahitur et mandate priori æquiparatur. (COKE LITT.
207.a)—Every ratification of an act already done has a retrospective effect, and is equal to a
prior command.
138. i a man claim that the Chairman of the Royal Family Committee Douglas Shing’andu
informed the House of Chiefs of Judge Chiimbwe’s accession to the office of Chief Nalubamba of
the indigenous community of the people of Mbeza on 13th January 2021 and that Judge Chiimbwe
Nalubamba wrote a letter of acknowledgement of his accession to the seat of Chief Nalubamba as
by our custom established. Both of these letters bore the signature of Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba
and the stamp of the Prime Minister as per the notice given to Government officials dated 30th June
2019. Neither letter received a response nor acknowledgement.
139. i am informed and believe that the above (120) letters were forwarded to the Permanent
Secretary at the Ministry of Chiefs and Traditional Affairs by Mr J Kawangu from the Office of the
Clerk at the House of Chiefs. No response or acknowledgement was received.
140. i a man claim that the exclusive rights to the ownership, use, privileges and benefits of the
title and office of Senior Chief Nalubamba, being the correlative property of Mwami Nalubamba,
are the Property of Mwami Nalubamba and thus are the Property of Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba.
Do you deny this?
MAXIM: Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse
non potuit. (11 COKE, 52.)—The granter of anything to another, grants that also without
which the thing granted would be useless.
MAXIM: Assignatus uti tur jure aucteris. (HALE .14.) —An assignee acquires the rights of the
assigner.
MAXIM: Jus triplex est ; proprietatis, possessionis, et possibilitatis. (WHART. 530.)—Right is
three-fold; of property, of possession, and of possibility.
Theft Act 1968 4. (1) " Property " includes money and all other property, real or personal,
including things in action and other intangible property.
141. On the basis of the foregone, i a man claim that King Nalubamba, Joseph Mwanambulo,
Mukamadede Munamooya and Muchemba Hakoola, acting in concert, in the period leading up to
August 18th 2019, administered the Mwami’s Property – the office of Chief Nalubamba – without
right when they conspired to name, named and selected King as Chief Nalubamba on August 18th
2019; and when by their actions up to and/or beyond that date, they brazenly facilitated the public
installation of King Nalubamba as Chief Nalubamba in October 2019.
142. i a man claim that King Nalubamba, a man, knew that he was disobeying the will of his
fathers in having himself named as chief; and that by pursuing the chieftaincy of Nalubamba
without the consent of Judge Chiimbwe Nalubamba, accepting to be named as Chief Nalubamba
by unqualified individuals, and then carrying and presenting himself as Chief Nalubamba against
the will and authority of his elders, is guilty of contumacy.
MAXIM: Nullum crimen majus est inobedientia. (JENK. CENT. 77)—No crime is greater than
disobedience.
MAXIM: Nemo inauditus nec summonitus condemnar debet, si non sit contumax (JENK.
CENT. 18)—No one should be condemned unheard and unsummoned, unless for
contumacy.
Contumacy Definition: stubborn perverseness or rebelliousness; willful and obstinate

resistance or disobedience to authority. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/contumacy
Do you deny this?
143. i a man claim that King Nalubamba, a man, from August 2019 to date, by acting
personally and through his agents to take over the Nalubamba Chiefdom’s Chambers, make
declarations as chief, call meetings of the administrative structures of the chiefdom as chief; write
letters in the name of Chief Nalubamba, publicly yet illegitimately proclaim himself to be Chief
Nalubamba and receive whatever benefits he is receiving from being seen to be Chief Nalubamba,
etc., while clearly lacking the customary authority to hold that office through that customary
correlate that is being made Mwami of the Bana Munyati by the elders of the Bana Mwami, is
administering someone else’s property – the office of Chief Nalubamba – without rights, and this
has done and caused, and continues to cause me injury and loss as the probable heir to the throne
from the 4th house.
MAXIM: Contrecatio rei alienae, animo furandi, est furtum. (JENE . CENT. 132.) —The
touching of property not one’s own, with intention to steal, is theft.
144. i a man claim that no passage of time can validate what King Nalubamba did, and has
continued to do, viz the chieftaincy of Nalubamba since June 15th 2019, nor legitimate any claims
he makes to being Chief Nalubamba; and that he continues to attempt to build on a void
foundation, propped up by the words and deeds of wrong actors who conducted invalid acts that
meant nothing to those aware of our true customs, and that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of
African customary law.
MAXIM: Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin.
145. i a man claim that Joseph Mwanambulo, a man, is an accessory, who, by the acts of
aiding and abetting King during his selection, naming and public presentation as Chief Nalubamba
and thereafter working with him in affairs of the chieftaincy and chiefdom, administered, and
continues to administer the Mwami ‘s Property – the office of Chief Nalubamba – without right,
doing wrong and causing me injury and loss as the probable heir to the throne from the 4th house.
146. i a man claim that Desai Nalubamba, a man, is an accessory, who, by supporting King’s
unsubstantiated claim to being Chief Nalubamba in blatant violation of our customs, is abetting him
in administering the Mwami’s Property – the office of Chief Nalubamba – without right, doing
wrong and causing me injury and loss as the probable heir to the throne from the 4th house.
147. i a man claim that Mukamadede Munamooya, a woman, is an accessory, who, by

pretending to have the authority to forfeit the rights to, and presuming to give away, the Property
of the Mwami to King Nalubamba, has administered said property – the office of Chief Nalubamba
– without right, and has done me wrong and caused me injury and loss as the probable heir to the
throne from the 4th house.
148. i a man claim that Muchemba Hakoola, a man, is an accessory, who, by playing a pivotal
role in the naming of King Nalubamba as Chief while purporting to be a mukwashi, a role without
which the selection proceedings would not have been given an appearance of legitimacy, has
administered the Property of the Mwami – the office of Chief Nalubamba – without right, and has in
so doing done me wrong and caused me injury and loss as the probable heir to the throne from the
4th house.
MAXIM: Nullus dicitur accessorius post feloniam sed ille qui novit principalem feloni am
fecisse, et illum receptavit ae comfortavit. (3 INST. 138) —No one is called an accessory
after the fact, but he who knew the principal to have committed a felony and received and
comforted him.
MAXIM: Accessorium non ducit, sed sequitur suum principale . (COKE, LITT. 152 a. )—An
accessory does not lead, but follows his principal.
MAXIM: Let the principal answer.
"35. There is, in my opinion, a further consideration which supports the view that for liability
as an accessory to arise the defendant must himself appreciate that what he was doing was
dishonest by the standards of honest and reasonable men. A finding by a judge that a
defendant has been dishonest is a grave finding, and it is particularly grave against a
professional man, such as a solicitor.”
- Lord Hutton in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164
149. i a man am informed and believe that King Nalubamba is registered as the holder of the
office of Chief Nalubamba with the Government of the Republic of Zambia through the Ministry of
Chiefs and Traditional Affairs.
150. i a man am informed and believe that King Nalubamba is receiving the monthly stipend that
the Government gives to the Chiefs of Zambia as the representative of their indigenous
communities.
151. I a man claim that I have a special interest in the chieftaincy of Nalubamba and the office of
Chief Nalubamba as I fall into the line of succession to the throne of Nalubamba as a member of
the Royal Family, particularly as my house (the 4th) is the next house slated to accede to it in the
sequence of succession as per our community’s knowledge and custom. Do you deny this?
152. i a man am informed and believe that a man’s wrongful registration with the Government as
Chief can, when brought to Government’s attention by that Chiefdom’s recognised offices and
customarily qualified men or women, be treated as an administrative error, correctable without
recourse to costly legal procedures, as it is in essence the case of one man’s property – an office
that correlates to that man’s customary status – which was wrongfully assigned to someone else,
being restored to him by the simple correction of the Government’s registration record. Do you
deny this?
153. i a man claim that King Nalubamba is enjoying benefits and enriching himself where he has
caused injury.
MAXIM: Injuria propria non cadet in beneficium facientis. (BRANCH, PR.)—A man should
not be benefited by his own wrongdoing.
MAXIM: Jure naturæ æquum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri
locupletiorum. (DIG. 50. 17.)—By the law of nature it is just that no one become more rich
by the detriment and injury of another.
Do you deny this?
154. i a man claim that King Nalubamba’s not being the customarily selected Mwami of our
indigenous community means, 130 above being true, that he is sequestering money that by right
should be received by the true Mwami as chosen by the custodians of our community’s chieftaincy;
I am informed and believe that this King Nalubamba’s actions in acquiring an office he has no
customary right to and taking the obtaining the money that goes with that office constitute theft.
1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another

with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ; and " thief " and " steal" shall
be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the
thief's own benefit.
3,(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation,

and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it,
any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
4.-(1) " Property " includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things
in action and other intangible property.
– Theft Act 1968.1,2,3 and 4
MAXIM: Furtum est contrectatio rei alienae fraudulenta, cum animo furandi , invito illo
domino cujus res illa fuerat. (3 INST. 107)—A theft is the fraudulent handling of another’s
property, with the intention of stealing; the proprietor, whose property it was, not bidding
it.
Do you deny this?
155. i a man claim that our community’s chieftaincy – Bwami – and its office, that of Chief
Nalubamba, have suffered irreparable injury, reputational loss and pain of humiliation because of
the actions of those herein named in the administration of the Mwami’s Property without rights.
156. i a man am informed and believe that our Chiefdom has fallen into disrepute amongst
other Baila/Balundwe chiefs and chiefdoms on account of the aforenamed and others’
administration of the Property of the Mwami without right.
157. i a man claim that our community’s ancient customs still hold notwithstanding recent events,
abuses and breaches, and their observance must be restored. Do you deny this?
MAXIM: A communi observantia non est recedendum. (COKE, LITT. 186. a. )—Common
observance is not to be departed from.
MAXIM: Consuetudo neque injuria oriri , neque telli petest. (LOFFT, 340.)—A custom can
neither arise nor be abolished by injury.
MAXIM: Droit ne poet pas morier. (JENK. CENT. 100. )—Right cannot die.
158. i a man claim that it is fair and just that any man or woman whose property is
administered without right, handled without permission, wrongly or fraudulently acquired, or stolen
should be made whole by receiving restitution and restoration of said property from those
responsible for its wrongful administration or theft; and that he or she reserves the right to pursue
lawful remedy against any and all trespassers against him- or her-self. Do you deny this?
159. i a man claim that it is fair and just for a man or woman who has suffered harm, loss, or
injury on account of the actions of a known other woman or man to be made whole by way of
damages receivable from them. Do you deny this?
MAXIM: It is equity that he should have satisfaction who sustained the loss.
MAXIM: Nome damnum facit, nisi qui id fecit quod facere jus non habet. (DIG. 50. 17.)—No
one does damage, unless he is doing what he has no right to do.
MAXIM: Equity suffers not a right without a remedy. (4 BOU. INST. 3726)
MAXIM: Dolus et fraus una in parte sanari debent. (NOY, 33) —Deceit and fraud
should always be remedied.
MAXIM: Benedicta est expositio, quando res redimitur a destructione. (4COKE, 26.)—Blessed is the
exposition by which anything is saved from destruction.
If the parties given notice by means of this document have information that would controvert and
overcome this Affidavit, please advise me IN WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT FORM within ten (10) days from
receipt hereof, providing me with your notarised/commissioned counter-affidavit, rebutting this
affidavit by proving with particularity – point for point – and stating all requisite actual evidentiary
fact and all requisite actual law, and not merely the ultimate facts or conclusions of law, that this
Affidavit Statement is substantially and materially false sufficiently to change materially my status
and factual declarations. Failure to rebut the facts stated herein shall serve as tacit agreement and
acquiescence from any man, woman, or PERSON that all herein be true, being established from
then on as admissible fact as a matter of law.
MAXIM: Perjurii pœna divina exitium ; humana dedecus. (LOFFT, 46.)

—The divine punishment of perjury is destruction; the human punishment is disgrace.
Pursuant to Chapter 104 of the Constitution of Zambia “(1) Any person who, in any judicial
proceeding, or for the purpose of instituting any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false
testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then pending in that proceeding or
intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of the misdemeanour termed "perjury". (2) It is
immaterial whether the testimony is given on oath or under any other sanction authorised by law.
(3) The forms and ceremonies used in administering the oath or in otherwise binding the person
giving the testimony to speak the truth are immaterial, if he assent to the forms and ceremonies
actually used. (4) It is immaterial whether the false testimony is given orally or in writing. (5) It is
immaterial whether the court or tribunal is properly constituted, or is held in the proper place, or
not, if it actually acts as a court or tribunal in the proceeding in which the testimony is given. (6) It is
immaterial whether the person who gives the testimony is a competent witness or not, or whether
the testimony is admissible in the proceeding or not.”
I, Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba, sincerely, without dishonour, ill will or frivolity

declare and will testify viva voce, in open court, under penalty of perjury that all herein be true and
correct.
Executed on this the 14th day, of the 9th month, in the year of two thousand twenty-one.
Reserving ALL my Natural God-Given Inalienable Rights, Waiving None, Ever.
______________________________________
Affiant
Notary used without prejudice to my rights:
BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this ______ day of _________________ in the year of our LORD, two
thousand and twenty-one, personally appeared before me, the Subscriber, a Commissioner for
Oaths for the Republic of Zambia, Mutenguna Franklin Mukakanga Nalubamba, party to this
Document, known to me personally to be such, and he acknowledged this Document to be his act
and deed. Given under my hand and seal of office, the day and year aforesaid.
________________________________________________
Commissioner for Oaths Sitting in, and for, The Republic of Zambia

MFMN AFFIDAVIT OF FACT - Lumamba Lweza - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MFMN AFFIDAVIT OF FACT - Lumamba Lweza - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared :Mutenguna-Franklin-

2. i a man am informed and believe that Mwanang’ambwa Nalubamba had a brother

Do you deny this?

5. Of Nalubamba’s sons' sons (grandsons), of the most senior generation of Nalubamba’s

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

MAXIM: What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

MAXIM: (4 COKE, 38)—A reasonable custom is to be obeyed as law.

Do you deny this?

MAXIM: Non possessori incumbit necessitas probandi possessi on es ad se pertinere. (BR.

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

MAXIM: An error which is not resisted, is approved.

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

92. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba attempted to escort Judge

93. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba, along with Judge Chiimbwe

Do you deny this?

95. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba, immediately after these events, on the

96. i a man Mutenguna-Franklin-Mukakanga:Nalubamba claim that Mr Chipeta and his party

Do you deny this?

MAXIM: False in one thing, false in all things.

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

Do you deny this?

“Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(a)the person making the representation, or

(b)any other person.

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another

Do you deny this?

165. (1) The institution of chieftaincy and traditional institutions

(2) Parliament shall not enact legislation which—

Do you deny this?

7. (1) Where the recognition accorded to a person as a Chief or the appointment of a

124. i a man claim that a constitutionally qualifying community’s Government-registered Chief

Do you deny this?

126. i a man claim that an appeal to external authorities' or dignitaries' presence at an

UNDRIP Article 4 (partial)

Do you deny this?

MAXIM: Mos pro lege. (TAYLER, 321.)—Custom stands for law.