By GRACE CHAILE
Juldan Motors Limited proprietor, July Danobo, has submitted to the Lusaka High Court that his son, Raymond, is not entitled to the counterclaim of K7 million, as he does not own the 30 luxury buses.
Mr Danobo denied gifting his son the properties in question as the buses are owned by Juldan Motors Limited.
He said there would be no legitimate profit from the business as a matter of entitlement by his son stating that the entire transaction was illegal and needed to be vacated immediately.
“The first plaintiff owns the said buses and that the said gifting could not legally be done as the said property belongs to the company,”
“The defendants defence are heavily denied as the second plaintiff had no legal capacity to gift property which he doesn’t own as it was property of the first plaintiff at all material times,” he said.
This is in response the Raymond’s counterclaim of for loss of business.
Raymond said that the properties in question were a gift from his father.
“The defendant shall aver at trial that there was no trust deed created at all between the second plaintiff (July Danobo) and the defendant, rather than the second plaintiff gifted the defendant the properties stated in the claim in consideration of natural love and affection as his son, which fact the second plaintiff confided in court under cause no. 2015/hp/0678,”
“The defend shall say that once motor vehicles are gifted, they cannot be taken away by the donor,” he contended.
He refused to transfer the ownership of 30 luxury buses into the company’s name.
Mr July Danobo sued his son seeking an order of the court instructing him to change ownership of the 30 luxury buses to Juldan Motors limited.
He was also seeking damages for loss of businesses and any other consequential relief the court may deem fit under the circumstances.
The litigant alleged that between November 2013 and December 2021, he entered into an arrangement in which the son was to hold a number of motor vehicles and other properties in trust on behalf of Juldan Motors Limited.
He said the said properties were registered in Raymond’s name over the said period of time but are in fact originally owed by the company.