Despite the several challenges and issues faced by Dr. Rajan Mahtani, he has not left his path of transparency, honesty and ethics. This can be easily seen in the long wait of more than ten years at the Lusaka High Court for the legal holding of the Zambezi Portland Cement. After that, Dr. Rajan Mahtani moved to the higher Court of Appeal and finally got justice. Finsbury Investments is an organization under Dr. Rajan Mahtani which became the majority shareholder of the Zambezi Portland Cement factory after collaborative agreement among the shareholders. However, the Ventriglias started an internal feud by questioning the instruments used for establishing the original shareholders’ agreement. With unethical political power, they were able to exert their personal interests on the decision by the Lusaka High Court which resulted in a controversial decision of the Ventriglias becoming only shareholders of the Portland Cement.

After this, higher Court of Appeal was approached by Dr. Rajan Mahtani which was a successful attempt as on 31^st January 2019, justice Mwinde on behalf of the higher Court of Appeal effectively reversed the decision from the Lusaka High Court and announced Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investments as the majority shareholder of the Zambezi Portland Cement with 58 percent shares. It was also announced that the Ventriglias’ owned Ital Terrazzo Limited holds just 42 percent shares at the factory and are minority shareholders without any legal ownership over the factory. Furthermore, justice Mwinde also confirmed that the amount payable to the Ventriglias as per legal obligations is K580,000.

The Ventriglias have since tried to take over the factory and in a last-ditch attempt, challenged the Supreme Court of Zambia that the decision made by the higher Court of Appeal was unethical. However, a bench comprising of three Supreme Court judges have since rejected this challenge based on several grounds such as time limit for registering an appeal which already passed. The judges further rejected this proposal based on grounds that the evidence were not enough to accept the claim.