Eastern Co-operative Union Ltd v William (Appeal 54 of 1993) [1993] ZMSC 83 (9 November 1993)

IN THE SUPREME COURT GF ZAMBIA APPEAL NO. 54 OF 1993 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA BETWEEN:- EASTERN CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED APPELLANT Vs GOODSON LEONARD WILUMA RESPONDENT CORAM: GARDNER, CHIRWA AND NUZVAMBA JJS., i 9th November, 1993 Mr. R. Simeza of RMA Chongwe and Company appeared for the appellant. Mr. H. Silweya of Silweya and Company appeared for the respondent. Gardner J. S. delivered the Judgment of the court. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the grant of an Interim injunction restraining the appellant from removing the respondent as Chairman of Board of Directors of the appellant Co-operative Union. The facts of the case are that the appellant by its board of directors resolved that the respondent should be dismissed from his position as Chairman of the Board of Directors. The respondent issued a writ claiming damages for such dismissal and for an injunction restraining the appellant from effecting his removal. At the hearing of the application for an injunction, arguments were advanced, and repeated in this court, to the effect that, on behalf of the appellant, the Board of Directors had power, having been the board who properly appointed the respondent as Chairman, to remove him by ordinary resolution of the Directors. On behalf of the respondent it was argued.that Sections 122 and 162 of the Co-operative Societies Act provided the onlycP^P^ by which any officer similar to a Chairman of the Board of Directors could be dismissed, and consequently, as those sections provided for a dismissal by a general meeting or by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the dismissal by the Board of Directors alone was invalid. ; Mr. Silweya, on behalf of the respondent, argued that although his client 2/.... H clalains damages which would for Ms actual out of lo there was the intangible loss, arising out of rcrnoval from office which could n ba calculated in monetary terns. For this reason, he argued that anInjunct ic should be granted because in no other way could the respondent continuing tent be protected, Mr, Siceza nowever, argued that damages had in fact been quantified In the statement of claim so teat ft sun of money could be calculated as compensat and an injunction should not^bjK granted. In the circumstances of this case we agree with Mr, Sima that damage wouU be an adequate reoedy, It follows therefore that we tre satisfied that an Injunction should not nave been granted in this-case. The appeal is allowed, the order for an injunction is set aside.and there will be costs to tne appellant in this court and In the court below. £ ' ft: ■•; ■. 3. T. GAl^Eft SUPfdKE COURT JUDGE SUPREME COURT JUDGE a. :"?h ■ WX, WSYAtSA WRE1E COURT JUDGE ... . ■ • ■ . >Ujrd;