The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), successfully obtained a non conviction based forfeiture order in a matter which was argued before a panel of three High Court Judges, Honourable Justices Susan Wanjelani, Pixie Yangailo, and Vincent Siloka.

The case, initiated on 20 January 2025, centered around Mimy Eid Alsyed Abouelnaga, an Egyptian national who, according to immigration records, entered Zambia on 30 July 2024 under a single-entry visitor visa that prohibited any business activity.

However, in a routine immigration operation on August 6, 2024 in Lusaka’s Rhodes Park area, Abouelnaga was found openly marketing household goods from a Toyota Noah (Reg: ALL 8693). He even sold a blue blanket to one of the officers during the operation, an act that ultimately formed the basis of the case.

Upon interrogation and verification, it became clear that Abouelnaga was in direct breach of the Immigration and Deportation Act No. 18 of 2010, specifically Sections 54 and 56(1), which prohibit engaging in prescribed business activities without appropriate authorisation. He admitted guilt and was fined K2,000.

Crucially, the vehicle and goods used in the transaction, including kitchen appliances, electronics, and textiles, were seized by immigration officials and subsequently subjected to forfeiture proceedings led by the DPP.

In court, an opposing affidavit was filed by Khaled Elsayed, another Egyptian national residing in Lusaka, who claimed ownership of the vehicle and stated it had been hired out to Abouelnaga. However, the court found that Elsayed failed to demonstrate that he had no knowledge of the vehicle’s illegal use.

The bench ruled that he did not satisfy the requirements under Section 12(2) of the FPOCA, which places the burden on any interested party to prove that the property was not tainted and was used without their knowledge or consent.

In their judgment, the court ruled:

“We are satisfied that the vehicle in question cannot be excluded from the scope of forfeiture. The interested party has not sufficiently displaced the presumption that the property was tainted.”
The court consequently ordered the forfeiture of the items to the State.

This case exemplifies the Director of Public Prosecutions’ resolute application of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No. 19 of
2010 without distinction as to nationality, political affiliation, or any other consideration unrelated to the evidence.

Follow us for more updates on legal matters and notable rulings that shape our nation.