Prest secures Zambia court victory in Investrust stake dispute
Written by Black Hot Fire Network Team on February 24, 2026
Nigerian investor Prest is pursuing legal action to recover the value of a 24.8% stake in Investrust Bank, which he says was effectively eliminated when the bank was liquidated. The case highlights concerns about investor rights and regulatory transparency in Zambia.
A Stalled Investment and Courtroom Battle
Prest’s investment vehicle, Bank of Nevis International Limited (BONI), acquired nearly a quarter of Investrust’s shares on the Lusaka Securities Exchange in 2021. The purchase adhered to exchange regulations and involved licensed brokers.
However, as Investrust was a regulated bank, BONI’s stake required formal recognition from the central bank. BONI submitted the necessary paperwork but faced a nearly three-year delay. During this period, BONI could not vote, participate in board decisions, or influence the bank’s operations, yet it remained fully exposed to the investment’s economic risks.
In January 2024, regulators informed BONI that they did not recognize the company as a shareholder. Subsequently, Investrust was liquidated, resulting in the complete loss of BONI’s investment without any refund.
High Court Decisions
Justice Charles Zulu of the Zambian High Court dismissed two attempts by the central bank to block BONI’s case. First, he rejected the bank’s effort to overturn BONI’s notice of discontinuance, finding that the company had followed proper Zambian procedures. Second, he dismissed the claim that BONI’s subsequent judicial review constituted an abuse of process, allowing the case to proceed and ordering the central bank to pay associated costs.
These rulings keep BONI’s challenge alive and draw attention to the country’s handling of investor rights and regulatory transparency.
Investor Concerns and Potential Compensation
International lawyer Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners, representing investor interests in the case, stated that the situation extends beyond a single bank. He described the liquidation as “a tragic story and an own goal for Zambia.”
Amsterdam argued that Prest viewed Zambia as a strategic economic gateway and was left without resolution after a three-year delay. He emphasized that regulatory unpredictability is detrimental to investors, stating, “The one thing no investor can stomach is when predictability leads to uncertainty.”
Regarding potential compensation, Amsterdam suggested damages in the neighborhood of $40 million to cover both the investment and the opportunity cost to the investor. He predicted the case would have lasting repercussions, stating, “This is not a case that will go away. It will matter to all of the banks and investors in the future Zambian market.”
The case is now being viewed as a test of whether investors in Zambia can rely on clear rules, transparent regulation, and predictable outcomes.
