Chrispin Musonda Mambwe (for and on behalf of TheCross Boarder Trades Association) SADCC and COMESA) Members v Musonda & Others (for And on behalf of CROSS BOARDER TRADERS ASSOCIATION (SADCC & COMESA) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. (SCZ 8 96 of 2003) [2003] ZMSC 24 (24 July 2003)

,•••• (cid:9) 4,4 IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA SCZ/8/96/2003 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA 'CIVIL JURISDICTION1 BETWEEN: CRISPIN MUSONDA MAMBWE & OTHERS (for and on behalf of the Cross Boarder Trades Association) SADCC and COMESA) Members. AND MISHECK MUSONDA & OTHERS (for And on behalf of CROSS BOARDER TRADERS ASSOCIATION (SADCC & COMESA) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. - RULING APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS • The Appellants have applied to this Court to Stay of Execution of the Ruling of the Court below delivered on 14th April, 2003 in which the learned trial Judge discharged an ex parte injunction which he had earlier granted on the 13th of March, 2003. In the Affidavit in support of the Application for Stay of Execution, one, Crispin Mambwe deposed that the Appellants will suffer irreparable damage in that the money being collected by the Respondents will not be accounted for. He states that "damages is money and if the money cannot be recovered then the damage will be irreparable". He then goes on to depose to various alleged financial irregularities and breach of the Cross Boarder Traders Association Constitution. An Affidavit in Opposition by one, Misheck Musonda has been filed in which the said Misheck Musonda replies to the allegations in the Affidavit in Support and also alleges consequences suffered when the ex pane injunction was in place. Counsels for the parties submitted before me and to some extent strayed into substantive matters to be decided on appeal. I have considered their submissions as well as the Affidavits before me. It is quite clear to me that parties argued the merits of the appeal when the question for my decision is simply whether the Ruling of the Court below should be Stayed. I have perused through the Ruling of the Court below and I note that the learned trial Judge granted leave to appeal. I have been unable however to find a record of the proceedings where he refused a Stay of Execution. Be that as it may, I conclude from the Affidavits and submissions of Counsel that this is a heavily contested matter. Also, the situation is that the Judge in the Court below refused to grant an injunction and on that premise, the Appellants are seeking a Stay of that Ruling which in effect will operate to reinstate the interim injunction which was refused. A Stay, being an equitable remedy, the Appellants have to show a real risk of miscarriage of Justice or some exceptional circumstances to persuade the Court to grant the relief sought. This being a heavily contested matter both on facts and legal issue, I am not persuaded to grant a Stay of Execution. The application is refused with costs. Dated this 4th day of July, 2003. , V---- I. M. C. Mambilima JUDGE SUPREME COURT