The Economic and Financial Crimes Court (EFCC) has rejected an application by former First Lady Esther Lungu to stay the forfeiture of her 15 double-storey luxurious flats valued at K66 million to the State pending the outcome of her appeal at the Court of Appeal.
A bench comprising Justices Pixie Yangailo, Ian Mabbolobbolo, and Vincent Siloka ruled that the former First Lady had failed to provide sufficient grounds or demonstrate special circumstances to justify a stay of execution of the September 27 judgment.
The court stated that it was a well-established legal principle that a successful litigant is entitled to the immediate benefits of their judgment.
While the court has discretionary power to grant a stay of execution, it can only do so if the applicant demonstrates sufficient grounds, including irreparable loss, special circumstances, or the risk of rendering the appeal nugatory if the stay is not granted.
The former First Lady argued that without the stay, her appeal would become academic and meaningless, as the forfeiture would already have been executed.
She contended that her grounds of appeal raised significant constitutional issues, including her right to property and alleged deviation from a precedent set by the Court of Appeal, with a high likelihood of success.
However, the court disagreed, stating that a review of her grounds of appeal did not disclose any strong prospects of success, especially when considered against the facts and legal authorities cited in the original judgment.
“From the affidavit evidence presented, the issues raised do not amount to special or exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting a stay of execution,” the court ruled.
The judges also noted that her argument regarding the Director of Public Prosecutions failing to meet the burden of proof was not sufficient to alter their decision.
They pointed out that the forfeiture in question was non-conviction-based and, therefore, the legal provisions cited by her counsel were irrelevant to her case.
In its conclusion, the court stated, “We are not satisfied that the interested party has made out a good case to persuade this court to exercise its discretion to stay the execution of the judgment pending appeal. This application is consequently declined.”
