The family of former Head of State, Edgar Lungu, has escalated their legal battle, returning to the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa to seek the reinstatement of their appeal concerning the custody and burial remains. This development closely follows the Pretoria High Court's action in facilitating the handover of Lungu’s body to the Zambian government via the South African Police Service, an event that had initially cleared the path for his potential repatriation. However, repatriation plans were put on hold as Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha stated that investigations into the cause of Lungu’s death were still underway.

The Supreme Court had previously determined that the family’s appeal had lapsed due to their alleged failure to meet a March 30, 2026 deadline for filing their arguments. In contrast, court papers reviewed by Kalemba reveal that the Lungu family is vehemently contesting this decision, arguing that their appeal was erroneously declared expired. In a founding affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the family's legal representatives assert that their submissions were, in fact, well within the official timelines stipulated by the court rules.

The affidavit explicitly states, "Our heads of argument were prepared and tendered well within the period contemplated by the Rules of this Honourable Court. The suggestion that the appeal has lapsed is, with respect, legally unsustainable." The lawyers further clarified that while an initial agreement aimed to fast-track the matter with earlier deadlines, these timelines were never rigid. Instead, they were flexible and subject to multiple revisions through mutual consent among all involved parties. The document emphasizes that "The date of 30 March 2026 was never a rigid, court imposed deadline but a product of good faith engagements aimed at expediting the matter. It cannot override the clear provisions of the Rules."

According to the family’s legal team, the relevant court rule grants appellants a six-week period after lodging the court record to file their arguments, a timeframe they contend had not yet elapsed. They argue, "The Rules are explicit. An appeal lapses only upon failure to comply with the prescribed period or a directive of the President of the Court. Neither scenario arises in this case." Despite their firm stance on the appeal’s validity, the family has prudently submitted a “conditional application.” This application requests the court to reinstate the appeal and grant condonation, but only if the court ultimately finds that the matter had indeed lapsed. "In an abundance of caution, and to avoid any procedural prejudice, the applicants seek reinstatement and condonation. This is not an admission of default, but a safeguard against a disputed interpretation," the affidavit explains.

The family attributes any perceived delay to a genuine misunderstanding stemming from the constantly evolving timelines that all parties had agreed upon. They highlight that the delay, estimated to be just under two weeks from the initially agreed-upon date, is minimal and insufficient to justify precluding them from legal recourse. The affidavit warns that "To non-suit the applicants under these circumstances would elevate form over substance and result in a grave injustice."

Moving beyond procedural arguments, the family maintains that their appeal possesses strong prospects of success, alleging that the High Court committed fundamental legal errors. They specifically challenge the High Court's interpretation and application of the legal framework surrounding human remains. "The recognition of a purported contractual arrangement over a corpse is inconsistent with established legal principles and risks unsettling settled jurisprudence," the affidavit reads. Furthermore, the family contends that the application of Zambian law in this particular case was procedurally flawed. "Foreign law was purportedly applied without the requisite expert evidence, and the Attorney General was impermissibly treated as an expert in his own cause, a clear misdirection in law," the document adds.

The family asserts that allowing their appeal to proceed would not cause any demonstrable prejudice to the respondents. Conversely, they argue that a refusal would lead to severe and irreparable harm for the applicants, denying them the crucial opportunity to present their case fully before the Supreme Court. The lawyers underscored this point, stating, "There is no demonstrable prejudice to the respondents. Conversely, the applicants stand to suffer irreparable harm if denied the opportunity to ventilate their case fully before this Court."