D.A. Banda v Leopold Walford (Z) Limited (Appeal No. 12 of 1987) [1987] ZMSC 98 (8 September 1987)

/ 111 Tfill SUPRENE COURT Of ZN!llA MOt. DSI AT LVSMA (CiYtl Juf'tldlctilft) IS ETWE£ll'lll and LE~li'U WAL. FO~i!! (Z) LIMlTlll CORAM: llfUlubt, D. C. J., Ardner and Sakala, JJ. S •• 8.&. l(lweel'lt, Messrs Knecht and ii:00'\1PlnY, for tht appellant O. E. A. fltt-•k•. Messrs l}.,ff, KIIIP Ind COllll)an)', for the ,-.spondent 8th S.ptal>er, 19157. u JUt>GMENi Girdner. J. S., dlHYtNd the Judglilent ot th• court This ts IA lf)J)tll frolll • Jucto-nt ot\'ti. !Uglt Court refusing I In tltis decl1r1U(ffl in rtSPtCt of tntltltl'ltnt .ta 1 ~slon sc:ht!Mt. JUdgllltllt we wHl ref'tr to thl appell.nt IS tht l)llil'ltiff Ind the resp!.ffldtnt 1s the dtftnd1nt rt$l)tetively. Tht facts of the case •r• that the appellant w1s -i,toyed by the defennnt as an lnvolce cltrk and his contract for t111PlO,Yllllflt was ccmta1Md in• Ittttr written to ht• by the ruJ)Ondtnt~ and dated tht 18th Autt,!Jt, lift. This lttur rtad as fellws: ,-,.lt'. IIW.ft, tald thlt 11U1t..,,_ llMbM, l·lftlnt.a JQI hM 11 .... M fcr th1s 001,t-Y t,o •re c:wtlin ft U. ISlltl im au. intinats ft All_.., WIiek I hp■d (f.llWl) URdtld with .rrst 1h11 the 1st lbli,_.. 1•. \'CIU Will al• lmf tl'at Allal, 1e(;k a bJtllriil will - In Mia m ttlt l&lt., (I O:ldllr, • • lt 11 _, tqlt ihlt )W will tit willll; to tinr.• Y'Jlil' WY1ctl to ..-ia l •• u.n-. W'itlllt 'to iiwlt. ~ to join tht stiff r/ this ~ It KlN oo tt'II 1st N,,·1• , 18 M b Wllftn (1'.llltll) Ulll-,. • folhlwt!Q WIii n Clllldliin:- trd.lV 1. ~ - 3. Leave 4, Pens ton Sc~ 6. Ttnatnatlon o! @>lei/!i!nt 30 days per tl'lft-fter twt Ive IIIOnths COJ'lti.nuous 1tl"lic1 wlth tile c_.ny. The Cl!IIIIJll'IY ~•tes. tlOn• ·cintrl&ttirjpijiih'rii : _1 $CIIIIM, whic1' ,eu wlll i,. . eliott>le to J<>in .on tht 15th .lanwt1"1. follewU11 tbt CCOll!j!llttlon of' twelve; 1110ntlu1 1 contlnuws servt ct ldth tbt Cllllpiny. ·. The COIIPll'IY ls a lllllllbfr Of the lid~ Mldlcal Aid SOeiety. which you are• eUglblt to joln. OM c1lend1r IIIIClnthS 1 noti.c• on etthtr sidt. Thoff latd down by tile COll1J)lny fr0111 tlN to ti1111. Will )'lllipl ... ltt•krr:lwaearly1S.}UICM~ya,n1Q1ulblitto trnfenirv tows~ Ml, if so, ~ )Qt will slg! tilt lttCl1ld <l4')11eat.t fJf tills letw 111d Mtlrt· it to me. a.e.•tfad MfMUIQ D'Jli:IIIOl,ffljlJt'l!IIO There wtt evid.nce that at the t11111 of writing that letter there was 1n existence• ptnrlon scfWllne and• policy with 1n insurance COIIIJ)ll'ly. H<Mvtr, on the fth of Movtlllbtr, 1970 the respondent wrete to the insurance the Ltgal and GtntNl Sccttty L1111ted. The conttAts of the letter were IS f0llO'WS' : u "Ytlur· lftttr '1'f Stll ~ . 1'10 m ._ d1SCUSNII It Ult lf!~•s tmll'I or U l t~ - ft•._, that tilt l'JWlm sdfMII bt ClGlld to• wlttW¢1 flll nl at'tM' U. 15th or .-..,. 1t1t, ad ~ J y ftlOII Ult ~'lt, tor tht • 111ldwt ~ ,_.. ,Oltey IIIIDlr'to»,<blys!nd. 'Wlll )'Qt ktfdl. Y ldift:lwllllilt lWllif)t rl this letw. Yan fllthMly l.8'Q. D w. RR> (VMIIA) LINTl7J A. C. Jll.ltftnf MIINN Dllll:l'at Th• plttntiff gav, tvtdtflct that ht had not seen the Mttf1Cltion thlt - -iow Jffilllt ··~ 1Jltlf ui,c~i- ~ ii~ • ftlar froei 1ny $0Urtt Whatsoever of such discontinua.tion. He further said that he was aware that at least two of the Mllbers of the dtftndant COl!lpany had rttirtd since tilt plaintiff's 11111>lo,Y11ent and such ~rs h1d received the s11111s of K15,000 end KfS,&00 as retirtllltftt benefits. Tht plaintiff 1gtetd that lltl was a Hllbtr of the Zambia National Providtnt F11nd and there was evidtoc:e th1t s • othltr •btrs of the defend1nt cCllll)any were. b$ntficllr1ts of both the pension's sohttlle and the M1t1cn11 Pl'ividtnt Fund. Tht plaintiff retired fNlil the defendant's Mj)lOY111tnt afttr f'ourttten years of service, ln<i when ht applitd for his IMntfits under tilt pension schlM ht ds infonlllld tll1t ri. had never been a lltlilllbtr of th1t 111:ri• and eonsequently ht was entitled to ne benefits th•~mder. The plaintiff sue<! the defend&nt for beneftts due to hi111 under the pension sch• and his statQll'Jlnt of claim in paragraph 11 read as follows: · "11 Nil "Ill p1alnt1fl' clab!IS ttr• a. A declamion that m a tl\!111 cmstn.tctittl or !lll'lnfcnt's lttter to tht pllintiff dltld 1eth Jto)st, t.•• the plllntiff is Mtitl-.:1 to 1 ~ m retirm,t rw:1/rr thlt the pl11nUff by v.irtu& or the said lett.tr bece A 11i11J1b11r ti(' tht ~ 1 s f,lll\Siai tdle'ftl <n 18th Jnl1y 197'1 ttter 12 imtt\$ G'IJ!t1MJS tervtc:e. . b. Iii'! ~ tie Uk«I of'- ·11U;tt rmr, is u n Qrlf~ to the plaintiff ~. the ~ by .v cl l'msian. c. lhe ~ b! order-1 to f.lll( the Pension uies to the pl&lntiff. d. Intnlt ~ the U <lit at 1& n fl"Qft the date of ,-tt.-..it. ·JUii - - · 1183. e. furl:her or otlW" relief. f. C'ostS. lhe <W'~'S !'Jl!l"IIQ WIS th1lt tht plliotiff WIS not en\'olltd 11'1 thtf peslon scheme on tile 15th January 1971 ind as a result he: did not rec•h• 1 certificate of iAsur11'1(e ~d w«s n&t ,ntitltd to btntfit under the penslen sche111e which hid been dhconttl'. M,lf.lil. so far 11 tht oployees suchilat the plaintiff, as fro. the 15th of J1nu.ry, 1971. 1bt ltamtd trtl.1 judge found tJlit by working for • conth'IUOl,IS period of twelve IIIOl'lths prier to the 15th of January 1971, tl'te plaintiff had becoN entitled to be a member of the pension scbeme but th1t ht dld not Make an application to join tht sch11111e, that the optlon to join w1s erttirely up to him and his failure to jo!n re~rtd him unable to clll111 any benefits to the pension sch11111. The ltarntcf ·trill judQt sald "'hWlrv u sttiSft.a thll pr ... condithlll$ ht ~c- el tg1b!~ to apply . Ind had N done so the <lefel'ldant we,uld hive then been botll'ld to 1eeept hi• as a ~ r of the sen.-••• •. Ind ffrther, "l find that the pl•inttff had becO!llt « 1111Ml,1tr· or tht sci't ... and consequently I d1$111US his clllm for • dtcl•r«tion". Mr. ICaweehe on bthllf of the plaintiff. has arguod before us that, ts the s~htN w1s non~contrlbutory, there was no onus upen the plaintiff to tokt any 1ctton to Join the sthtN, and IMl!lbershlp ct tht sclffMt w1s p1rt of the contract of ffrvtct cOtiltalntd in the lttttr dattd 18th Of A1.1gust, '"'· Mr. (ewtehe ll"gulQ th&t tilt learned trltl judge hU trr•d in finding that thtrt was any duty upon tht plelnttfff to • • Inf 1pplh:1Uon to join. the sc;hat Ind th1t thtNl WIS llO evidence IS to What were the truln of tilt insurance ~ny INklng it ntcesnr, for an ,appUc1nt to akt s~iftc 1ppUcttton to join the schtme as oppo-, U> • duty on the deftmllnt to iltfom the insur1nte COIJIPIIIY tf then• of the ntw Mell!blirs of th• scht111t 9ne of WhClll sh'ould htve ht,n the · . 1 plllntiff. I . ' In reply Mr. Ozeked:ztlct on bahlif of the dtftndant argued that ' as the platntlff was surrtc1.-itly 4,are of tl'lll Medical Aid SchtN referred to in the contrac.t to b1tco111e • 11\Nber Q:f' such s:chMe to which he tontr!buted a proportiol'I of the joint contribution and, to dtcicle not to c:111nt1nue with such ...wirshtp aAd t~ notify the lll<iltcat ,aid society accordtntlY, he should equally h,ave betn aw,are of tht existenc~ or di.scont1nuatl(;e or th• pension~•• In respect of this 1rgr,11111nt •• would say i~!ately that, tn vl• of the f,act of tht lllldical aid schei~&!tribtrtory seh• to 1111\ich the plaintiff had to !Ake p&ylJlltftt by w11 of deductions fro11 his salary, w WlS qultt clerly 11t1re by such deduct1ons that the scl\t!llle wts in force. lrlhera4s, in rtsPtCt of the • , pension scl1ea, which was non~contrtbutory, there was nothing to tell the plolnUff whtther it had been dtseontinllt!d or not. Mr. Dzek~zekt supr,orte(! the finding of tilt learned trilll Judge 1nd argued that the fact thlt thtt plaintiff was •lttibl• to join tht sehw on I ccertain d1t• did not •k• hi~ 1Utoffllt!c1lly 1 .-.r of the scbeme. Mr. Dztkedzeke f11rtntr argued that the writ and statllllent of cl,aiM do not cl1ll f~ps for brel(:h of contract 1nd th1t the claim tor a eeciarat i.olil, that • pastOl'I wts pay1ble to the plaintiff~'.;' was uncertain ln that tbt platntlff ltf111self was not aware or the tttl"III af the l)el'lSllJ!'tis!-e . tn gll'leral • .. .. The UabHtty or oth•rwtse of the dtfend1nt , dit~ds 111:ttr,1.r 1m th(! c9nstruct1an of t~ phrut 11you will be eligtblQ to Jotntt in th• (;onttxt of the eom.1H;l.ons cf 11rv1et. The 1tarnit4 trhl Ju.:tge found that thb did not IIMlke tnt ~ l lant tutorllt1c,ll ly a me11be1• Gf the pan.don /icll~ but that th•n1 wts 111 >duty . upiln thij plaintH'f to ak• an appUtatiM to join before thfl could btnttfit under tilt provt1tons ef tile $Chemt. Vt- art quite satbfhtd that the proper <:cont.tn:.rctfon of thit c0Rtr.1ct batwetn tilt partles is tt11t titre entittf!Nnt to ti. 1 ~ r of the P4JAl1on schtlle was a eontlltton of tMf>loylltftt. 11'1d that. 11 tt Will non~enntributGl"J', the dtf.mflnt had• duty to notify tht insur1nc1 CQMplny of the pl11nttff 1s entttlllllletltt to join the· sch• Ol'I tht 15th Of January 191t 111ittr tl'lt platnttff >114 C:Ol!Plt.ttd lthlfnitlal qu1Ufitng period ~ tlNllvt MOnths .$lll"\11ee. Vt do not. agree thit t~ WIS 1ny onus on ttt. pl1tntH'f to Mk• tn 1ppl icat!on to Join the sdltllll 1'11111Stl1', so , far •$ ·UM quesuoo Of whether or not the p!ainUff should have been 1w1r. thlt th1re has bffl'l I dtSt®tinuance of th• schlM such • <iiscontinutnce was • broach of ·the condition of HPlOYNnt w did not affkt th• i;lllnt.tt'f''S rtfjhts to a J)lflSUm under IUCh cond1tiOi'IS. lie are further sttbfild U!tt, 11 thtre w11 • ~sion schellle In exist-. •t. the tt• of the •nttrtng into gr tile contraet, the ttn11s ot such pension SChelilt Wirt ISCll"ttlntbl• by both partitl tnd tiler. WI$, th•refore, • btndlng contrl4t tn res~t. ef sueh ttnu. for ·the re1s;o11ll we '11•v1 given thls tpf)fal ••t suc:cttd. we allow tt1e appaa1 tnd vrant to the plaintiff tt dtelarathm that he u entitled to • pensian ff'OIII tht dtf-.idant as if ht had bttn a llll!lllbtr of the PtUS!on schfllf which W3$ in fQrce on Ula 13th of Aug111t. 1961 1t the Comtfqllltnt of the contract. We ro;n~t;' that-"". llCC®'lt . MLtlkttn of' the uottnt of eont.rtbutiona whtch the f.lefendant should have P«1d tmffr that pens!<m schta and tilt M10ttnt to which the plaintiff would have beel'l entitled tttd he liteitn pniperl.y enttt!ld 11!1 ll Nllbtr or the scheme.. we furthtr ord•r that Jl.ll'.fgNnt be tntered :In f11vur of ~ plaint%ff in tht lillll found to ho dllt to Mm rro11 tht defendant. further order that 1Rtertlt &hill be J)4)'1blt by the dtftndlf\t to tht plaintiff on tM sa f'Cftlllld to M M ftWt tht <fate of rttlrllMl'tt tf the Pl11nt1f1, that is 13th OKellber 1981, W'ttU the date Of th!.$ ;Jud~ at the rat• of 18. This rite I$ an 1verqt of the rate \lllleh wt COl'llldtr to M ap,Iiclbl• for tllt . Ytlr'S prior to the $1tMrll dtf,tlt.1a tion of the blcha w the l'ffl"I Utrtafter. There will be Uberty litit l) .. i to apply to th-t: regiStrar of the lfiJb Coi.irt. nw plaintiff w111 bt 1wa~d1d the costs cf this appeal and in the court below. M. S. NgulllM/ l)fPtlTIJ CHIEF. JUSTICE ---~ B. T. Gardner SUPREME COURT JOOG! ·---- E. L, sakall St1PR£M! COllRT t1008E -•.;........-"......,.;;-- (J r