Katongo v Contract Haulage Ltd (Appeal 22 of 1986) [1987] ZMSC 67 (9 July 1987)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA APPEAL NO. 22 Or 1986 HOLDEM AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: BENSON DAVID KATONGO Appellant and CONTRACT HAULAGE LIMITED Respondent CORAM: Ngulube, D. C,J., Gardner and Sakala JJ. S 9tn July, 1987 For the Appellant : In person For the Respondent: : Mr. Kinariwala, Legal Services Corporation RULING Hgulube, D. C. J., delivered the ruling of the court. In this particular case this court delivered a final judgment on appeal on 27th May, 1987. One of the Issues which we considered In that judgment was whether the Employment (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. 515 applied to the applicant, Mr. Katongo. We heard detailed arguments and submissions from Mr. Kambiti, counsel, who represented the applicant at the time as well as from Mr. Klnariwala who appeared for the respondent and continues to do so. By his summons, Mr. Katongo suggests that the court accidentally made a mistake in not upholding his claim based on the Employment (Special Provisions) Act which would have resulted quite possibly in a re-i restatement. it is quite obvious that Mr. Katongo is dissatisfied with the failure to secure reinstatement and, for that reason, he;has brought this application in whlch-to put it quite frankly-he has not been able to demonstrate that the court made any mistake by reason of any alleged accidental slip or ommislon. Mr. Katongo has alleged that there were some documents available to th® respondents which may have had a decisive affect on the issues which were raised on the particular point. We do not see that the failure by any party to put Forward all the material that they rely upon can later on be regarded as a slip or 2/..............omrision - R2 - cmmision on the part of the court. As we see this case, the application of Mr. Katongo is on ail fours with a similar application which was made by the applicant in the case of Godfrey Mlyanda -v- the Attorney- General, SCZ judgment Wo. 32 of 1985. We repeat what we said in that case that there is no rule which allows this court generally to amend or alter its final Judgment in the manner suggested by the applicant. We can see nothing accidental about any of the decisions which wo made in the judgment already referred to and we have no doubt whatsoever that this application Is misconceived. We dismiss this application with costs to/ferne by the applicant. M. S. Hgulube DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE 8. T. Gardner SUPREME COURT JUDGE E. L. Sakata SUPREME COURT JUDGE