Christopher Sinkamba v Simeza (SCZ 8 27 of 2002) [2003] ZMSC 71 (25 July 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA 8CW/271/2002 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA [CIVIL JURISDICTION] BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER SINKAMBA 2 : JUL APPELLANT AND MARGARET C. SIMEZA RESPONDENT RULING The Respondent has applied to this Court for an Order for security for costs pursuant to Rule 56 of the Supreme Court Act, Cap 25. In the Affidavit in Support sworn by Counsel for the Respondent, it is deposed that the Appellant commenced this action in the Court below, seeking a declaration that he was a lawful occupant of House No. 6 Ntoyo Road Woodlands. In the Course of the proceedings, he applied for an injunction to restrain the Respondent from evicting him from the house. This application was rejected by the learned trial Judge, with costs on the grounds that the Appellant had no claim of right to the property. The Appellant has appealed against this refusal by the trial Judge. The Respondent is now seeking an Order for security for costs in the sum of K30,000,000.00. According to the Respondent, the Appellant is not in gainful employment and as such may not be able to pay the costs of the Appeal. Counsel pointed out that the Appellant failed to pay costs in the sum of K17,65,562.50 which were taxed in the court below. (cid:9) The Appellant did not attend Court on the date of hearing this application. Be that as it may, I note from the record that the main action is by Writ of Summons and the appeal is in respect of an interlocutory Ruling of the Court below which Ruling appears to have decided substantive issues as opposed to the issue of an interim injunction. My perusal of the case record from the Court below confirms this position. In my view, there are pertinent issues to be decided ovt -as appeal which may affect the Order for costs and since this is an interlocutory matter, I am not persuaded to grant the Order sought. The application is therefore refused. I make no Order on costs. Dated this 17th day of July, 2003. I. C. Mambilima JUDGE SUPREME COURT