Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited has stated that the US$1 million being claimed by Rephidim Mining and Technical Supplies Limited and two other companies as security for costs at the current exchange rate is an over estimation of the likely costs in the matter.
Vedanta stated in an affidavit filed on Monday that the demand by the defendants is at the very least illusory, offensive and intended to stifle its action in court.
In this matter, KCM and Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited have sued Milingo Lungu in his capacity as provisional liquidator of
KCM, Rephidim Mining and Technical Suppliers Limited, Mimbula Minerals Limited and Moxico Resources Zambia PLC, seeking, among other claims, an injunction restraining Lungu whether by himself or his agents from taking any action to effect or perfect the sale of Lot 694/M to the other defendants.
But Rephidim Mining and Technical Supplies Limited and two other companies have asked the court to order Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited to pay security for costs pegged at US$1,000, 000.00.
The companies have stated that they may encounter difficulties in enforcing any order for costs that may be made in their favour against
Vedanta as it was resident outside Zambia.
And in an affidavit in opposition to summons for an order for security for costs, Vedanta director and company secretary Deepak Kumar of 177 Warren Road Orpington, BR6 BR6 6ES in the United Kingdom (UK) stated that he has read the defendants application for an order for security for costs.
Kumar, a British, submitted that Vedanta’s registered office was in the UK and it is not true that the defendants may encounter difficulties in enforcing any order for costs because Vedanta was not impecunious and would be able to meet the costs in the event that such an order for costs was made given that it is one of the largest investors in the Zambian economy.
He stated that it is true that Vedanta’s action has merit and has reasonable prospects of success and as such, no order for costs was likely to be made against it. Kumar stated that the action was not a derivative action and as such, Vedanta does not require leave to commence it.
He stated that Vedanta’s case was properly before the court and that the defendant’s application is misconceived and lacks merit.
Copyright © 2020 ZR.