NOW PF IN COMPLETE TURMOIL

By CHIKUMBI KATEBE

THE Patriotic Front (PF) has been thrown into complete turmoil with both Miles Sampa and his nemesis, Morgan Ng’ona claiming legal ownership after the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Ng’ona’s application for an injunction to restrain the Matero law maker from interfering and accessing the former ruling party secretariat.

The confusion will ultimately affect the party’s election prospects because the secretary general must sign the adoption certificate for a candidate to stand in the elections.However Mr. Sampa and his supporters who were in a festive mood marched to the secretariat where they were allowed access.

The Court of Appeal  apparently did not determine whether Mr Sampa was lawfully interfering with Mr Ng’ona’s role as secretary general but dismissed the application on a narrower procedural ground that the application for an injunction pending appeal should first have been made in the High Court.

But Mr Ng’ona maintains that the Court of Appeal had nor granted Mr Sampa absolute authority to claim legitimate leadership

The Court of Appeal yesterday delivered a ruling in favour of Mr Sampa through Justice Kelvin Muzenga sitting with Justice Chalwe Mchenga and Lady Justice Betty Mwaka Majula in a matter Mr Ng’ona has been challenging his dismissal and expulsion from the ruling party via an injunction to restrain the Matero Member of Parliament from accessing the PF secretariat.

Justice Muzenga explained that the appeal had substantially failed owing to failure to follow the High Court procedure by which the application should have been filed first before the High Court, and only proceed to the Court of Appeal in the case it failed to conclude its process.

“There is concurrent jurisdiction to grant an injunction pending appeal, on the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Therefore, where such a situation exists, the application must first be made in the High Court, and only brought to the Court of Appeal by way of renewal,” Justice Muzenga ruled.

“Therefore, the appellant having not made the application first in the High Court, it is incompetently before this court and must be dismissed.”

The Court of Appeals has also dismissed the ex-parte injunction granted to Mr Ng’ona which restricted access of the secretariat by Mr Sampa, opening access to his faction.

“For avoidance of doubt, the application for an injunction pending appeal is hereby dismissed. The ex-palte injunction order, dated the 19th March 2026, granted by the single Judge of this Court is hereby discharged,” the ruling read.

This ruling delivered yesterday followed an application by Mr Ng’ona who challenged the Sampa PF faction from dismissing him and others from the executive and subsequently the party as a whole.

But Mr Ng’ona is insisting that claims by Mr Sampa, who is the president of the PF that he has reclaimed control of the former ruling party were misplaced.

Mr Ng’ona is claiming that Mr Sampa has misinterpreted yesterday’s court ruling, which he claims did not resolve the leadership dispute in his favour.

In an interview yesterday, Mr Ng’ona said the court only made a procedural determination regarding the forum in which the matter should have been filed.

“Mr Sampa has misinterpreted the ruling. What the court said is that the appeal process should have been commenced in the High Court and not the Court of Appeal,” he said.

He also explained that the ruling did not in any way alter the current leadership structure of the PF.

“The court only guided on jurisdiction. It did not determine the leadership of the party. It simply stated that the matter ought to have been taken to the High Court,” Mr Ng’ona said.

Mr Ng’ona maintained that there had been no change in the status quo within the party, adding that both himself and Mafinga Member of Parliament, Robert Chabinga remain in control of the PF structures.

When asked whether he intended to pursue further legal action, Mr Ng’ona confirmed that he would be appealing the decision.

“Yes, we are going to appeal. We are not deterred by this ruling because it does not address the substantive issue of leadership,” he said.