The court ruled that the Supreme Court did not address any constitutional issues, making its decision final and unappealable.

A Lengthy Legal Dispute with a Family Feud at its Core

The feud between Matsika and his uncle, Moses Chingwena, over Croco Motors shares began in 2015 when Matsika left Croco Holdings, citing decision-making conflicts with new executives hired by Chingwena. 

Matsika's legal battle to gain a 30% share of Croco Motors has been marked by a series of legal challenges, including applications for condonation of late appeal, postponement, a larger appeal bench, and referral to the Constitutional Court.

The High Court's Ruling and Subsequent Appeals

The High Court initially ruled against Matsika, stating that he used fabricated documents in his attempt to claim his share of the company. Subsequent appeals were rejected due to late filings and lack of merit. 

Matsika continued his legal pursuit, approaching the Supreme Court and then the Constitutional Court, but his efforts to overturn these decisions were ultimately unsuccessful.

The Constitutional Court's Decision: The End of the Road for Matsika

The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed Matsika's application to appeal the Supreme Court's judgment. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court did not address any constitutional issues, making its decision final and unappealable. 

Justice Gowora, delivering the court's judgment, stated that actions contrary to legal provisions are null and void, and the Supreme Court's decision on condonation and extension of time to appeal was final.

A Battle Lost: Consequences for Matsika and Croco Motors

The court's decision marks a definitive end to Matsika's legal pursuit to claim a share of Croco Motors. This legal battle, spanning several years, has undoubtedly impacted both Matsika's business endeavors and the operations of Croco Motors.