Musendo v Zambia Breweries (SCZ Appeal 42 of 1996) [1999] ZMSC 77 (25 January 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ APPEAL NO. 42 OF 1996 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: CHARLES DENNIS MUSENDO APPELLANT AND ZAMBIA BREWERIES RESPONDENT Coram: Sakaia, ACJ; Chaila, ADCJ; Chirwa, JS 3rd September, 1998 and 25th January, 1999 For the Appellant : In person For the Respondent: Nil JUDGMENT Chaila, ADCJ, delivered the judgment of the court. CHARLES DENNIS MUSENDO, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, moved this court under Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules. The applicant was an employee of the respondent's company. The respondent company took out an action against him and dismissed him from employment. He took the matter to the Industrial Relations Court and the Court ordered that the applicant be reinstated in the former post as Senior Investigations Officer and that he be paid his arrears of salary and any allowances he was entitled to with effect from the date of the purported dismissal plus interest. The respondent company appealed to this court against the judgment. The appeal was determined and the judgment was delivered on 29th May, 1997. - J2 - The court in its ruling said: "It is, therefore, our considered view that the finding of the Industrial Relations Court that the respondent was discriminated against because of his social status was wrong. There is no evidence on record that the respondent was discriminated against on ground of his social status. The court below accepted discrimination because there was no reason found for his dismissal. The expert evidence rebutted the respondent's evidence. For the reasons we have given, the appeal is allowed and the order of reinstatement set aside with costs to the appellant and to be taxed in the event of disagreement." The applicant appearing in person submitted written Heads of Arguments in which he listed four grounds. The first ground was one based on discrimination. He argued that he was discriminated against by the respondent in that Mr. Kennedy Mubu who was assigned by the management was senior to him but was not charged by the respondent when the incident occured. He argued further that the respondent failed to make an intelligent decision by dismissing him, leaving Mr. Mubu free when in fact Mr. Mubu's report and his report were not at variance. In his argument, the applicant stated that this court in its judgment found that he was the most senior man when in fact not. The second ground was on ballistic expert evidence. He argued that the ballistic expert evidence was grossly fabricated in that ballistic expert did not examine the motor vehicle professionally, but based her report on the report by Mr. B. S. Phiri. The third ground was on his former Advocate Mr. Dzekedzeke. He complained that Mr. Dzekedzeke had professionally misconducted himself by abandoning him at trial level in the lower court and that he was engaged by the respondent. The fourth ground was a prayer. - J3 - All the arguments advanced by the applicant have not drawn to our attention any error or any accidental slip or omission in our judgment. When he spoke about Mr. Mubu being his senior, the applicant misunderstood what this court said in the NGWIRA's case which was quoted by us in delivering our judgment. The applicant has completely failed to show to this court any errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in our judgment. The application is therefore misconceived and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. E. L. SAKALA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M. S. CHAILA ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE D. K. CHIRWA SUPREME COURT JUDGE