Chibote Meat Processing Corporation Ltd (Formerly known as CC Farms Limited) and Ors v Sasol Fertilizers Zambia Limited (SCZ/8/243/2002) [2002] ZMSC 169 (20 December 2002)

I. - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA . SCZ/8/243/2002 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: - - · ►•"., ~ - - ::, .. )~••, ' ;,: . .' cc .... . i c ao:i. r;u . CHIBOTE MEAT PROC$~SlNG-CORPORATION LTD (Formerly known as CC Farms Limited) 1st Appellant CHIBOTE FARMS LIMITED MAZABUKA FARMS LIMITED AND 2nd Appellant 3rd Appellant SASOL FERTILIZERS ZAMBIA LIMITED Respondent BEFORE THE HON. MR. JUSTICE PETER CHITENGI AT LUSAKA THIS 2QTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2002. For the Appellants Mr. M. S. Ndhlovu of Messrs Chifumu Banda & Associates For the Respondent Mr. P. H. Yangailo of Messrs P. H. Yangailo & Company RULING This is an application by the Appellants to stay execution of a High Court Ruling refusing to grant the Appellants an Interlocutory Injunction. According to the Affidavit in Support this stay should be granted because the Respondent has breached an agreement between the parties to the effect that in the event of any sale of the Appellant's properties sharing of the proceeds w~ <U to be done in a particular manner, that is monies realized in excess of the purchase price to be R2 apportioned as follows: Amanita 40%, CC Farms and Mazabuka Farms 60°/t). The Respondent is disposing of the Appellant's properties and evicting the Appellants from the properties without disclosing t he purchase price and giving the Appellants the 60% of the proceeds as per agreement. The Affidavit also alleges that there has been double accounting of the sum claimed as owing. The Respondent filed an Affidavit in Opposition the sum and substance of which is that in fact execution took place on 29th November, 2003. The application before the Supreme Court on 2 nd December, 2002 had been overtaken by events. Similarly the Order of the Supreme Court dated 2 nd December, 2002 was overtaken by events. The Respondents have not abrogated any agreements. Nor has there been double accounting. The 60% refers to amount in excess of the agreed debt of US $672,480.11. The Appellants filed an Affidavit in reply saying that in fact no execution has taken place. There was only an attempted execution on Farm 230a which failed. The Affidavit then dwells on amounts which are supposed to be owed e.t.c. matters, which in the view I take of this application, are not relevant to this application. After looking at the Affidavits from all the parties the position is nmv clear to me. Mr. Ndhlovu for the Appellants created the impression that the stay sought was to stay a ruling. In fact the true position is that the Appellants are seeking an Order of Stay the high Court Judge's refusal to grant them an Interlocutory Injunction. The procedure adopted by the Appellant's is irregular. An appeal against refusal to grant an Interlocutory Injunction lies to the full court and not to a single Judge of the Supreme Court. In fact the appeal to the full court is a R3 fresh application. It is the full court which can, in a proper case, grant an Interlocutory Injunction. A single Judge has no jurisdiction to grant an Interlocutory Injunction. As matters stand now there is nothing to stay. If I grant the Stay it will mean reinstating the Interlocutory Injunction which the High Court discharged when I have no jurisdiction as a single Judge to grant an Interlocutory Injunction. This application is therefore, misconceived and I refuse t o grant the Order sought. The Ex Parte Order I granted on 2 n d December, 2002 is hereby discharged. DONE IN CHAMBERS AT LUSAKA THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2002. PEl!EJR.--e1:JITE I SUPREME COURT JUDGE