Ellalio Chabala Chishimikwa v Attorney General (Appeal No. 23 of 1988) [1988] ZMSC 83 (29 September 1988)

-- u u ' ' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA Appeal No. 23 of 1988 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA • I \ (Civil Jurisdiction) · ,: r" ... r t• " ELLALIO dtABALA CHISHI. MltWJi.-'' ·. ~ .. ·~ • ··1·1 - . 4 , .. :•, ·~ ..•• , ' .. and ._,,,, ·::. ' ·~·-:. . . . . . . ~ :•. ~:fii ';,2 Ap'pellant1 t.\1~. ,' :,,.••._;.,\:. t _ ,:•_.·,,_; .{ : ~- ..... •,· .•. ~ ·.1 - ·- · - · (' i:::, - t.,i_·1~ - • THE :ATTORNEY.:GENERAL<: ;.,;z: ~--~- 7 ~~fii~d R~spo~dent ::,~ :·.-:r•: •;1· .. ~ut:d ~;;1d ~ ~l;~--~. t.:,G lt:L·,:;:!-'; !r.t:1l .·· ; _>:·.j ~,;_;,,1 c9_RAM: Ngulube, ,o.p;. J •• B~eup~.-.a.n~ :.~,~-aH~•.,.~JJ~_S. ;:-, :;,:! .· ·:·>~._,. , <2ilth Septemb~r: :1988 :,-.': ·ly N. S. S1mango, Legal Aid .. Coun~·el ~: fcir "th~'ap'p'ei1'~~t· , r; t i:::, ;'.,; ,/;:': . B. L. Goel, Senior State Advocat e, for the respondent • · A : 1 t , f'.: ,.. fr1 r-.· , ....... #, ·•·'" :=; r:• '•:,; .. ~u~· .. ~_ r ... _ ... ~-:- · ·· ::.:t·•1 .; ' , .. - . .-,~r ;~ ! . JJ:, .~.i·t:: ; ... :.y ~ · .. -~ ~.;. 1; ,,:-:·=~s 'i -,c.: ,tu"[) fG ,~ti ff :r~ f: ,C~i!,S r-·a~: :-' ·; "> :1'1i,ch •... ;_ l;, ,: en·:,.':,' factor· 'C •. ,,. L~nrd c,f ··,:i-q~ ·.-13:; .... . . : ,'::• -~:11:'.'.· i!.1. :~00 and nrovi(le1 : t;:t1.t t.lw. e.•:cS!:SS uid not The issue in this a~peal _ i,s. \'fna~;,_i._~::~ cqr;r~~~,- ~~~~r,p_re~_~tt~fl.,-~-~ factor 11C11 me,ntioned in. se<:~~qn 53(3)--~~---~he 1.~ivp.: ~ex'li_c,e Lo~~l_. t..-·i-·: Condition~ Pensions, Act, . ph~p~er 4·'°•: T~-~ ,~µ-~s.~~~l~n ,_17~~~-~:1 , , :-..:;,,_,. "53(3) lte ~I' ~ peyable to a ~rscrt tn:ier.st.m:d:101 (1) shall 'be•calrulate:f n -:: i · •\v ,1:,t ~;f~lloo:- i.n tt::1 : .. :; : · " co:;t •.: :,ubji~Ct, ·,t ... :)t1r~e, ........ ,, ::;:: · .. ::f ,_,·, 1 ~ ~i~ar "r" it- --of~ -rY\311 1~ ,-, r:·1 ,:-,~1 L~. ~ q;,,~:,,~ i. ?.i:'. is l:::{Jcdly ai,:i~z-:. 1Gox<f. B +_~ C) 1-tiere A = ls his ~rmrt:age disability; B = tm arrual rat.e of his 81DlUTBlts imrmiat.ely before the date of his .injucy, .oot exceediD;J •••• , .• .. ... , . • • • • • • • • K1,l)'.); aoo H. H. $ . W. Ngulul:>e : DE?.l)f'( CMIFF JIJSTi~E - C = the arrual rate of his amlurents 1Jmmiat.ely before the dirt:e of hls iajury, 'if aey, iri- excess of K1 ,Jll rut rot exceooin;;, IG,040.11 By virtue of section 56 of the Act, · the· Deceased, off leer-' s estate· in· · · · . this case became entitled to receive': five _'times~ the. amount obtained by . . . : . ·-· ~ .. : . .. .:. \ .. , : . . . : ' .. , . . . ' : 2/ ••••••• using . ' - ·-·-- - - - -- - - - -- - -- -- -- -- - . ' • • • i • • . . . . J2 ' < : .. ·. , '. '.;•, i·. • · • . • .•.• , ...... ' ' ' . ~ . ' _. is not a fixed sum using the formular we have· just quoted. ·There was no dispute;that the death resulte.d in a hundred percent disabi I ity so that 11A11 in the equation was•a hundred percent. There was also .no dispute ·'.what "B" was since this worked out at K1,3001 the celling, b~cause the officer was earning an annual salary of. K1,752. The dispute concerned the interpretation of ; factor· 11C11 tri the equation. We have'.: cQn·sidered the arguments raised in this matter and we are satisfied that the Ministry of Finance·was :on 1'ffrm·groLind and that the lear~_ec;t._tr♦tal judge did not err when they found, th~t Factor 11c:1 arbitarily taken either with reference to the annual salary simply because it does not exceed the ceiling or by· subtra·ctlng K1,300 from K3,040 under this section~ It is a'figure qbtalned by computing the annual excess of actual ~alary over, K1 ,.300 a_n~:-~nY such excess was itself subject to.the ~eiling of K3,040. Actual salary of the officer in this case having been K1. 752, the excess was· K452 wti.ich· was well below the celling under·. f.actor :~•c.11 • A third of this was properly used in the co"mputation. A computation under factor "C11 ........... ···- . ··- .... --~_;'._•~·' was related directly ~n~J ~_pecificaM. Y;; 1~ ~~-~ a:~:~~~tl emoluments to thei: ·.) extent that they exceeded K1 ,300 and prpvided ttiat' the excess did not •_.·>/:. exceed· K3, 040.. We· repeat: ... It; is. an, actual and not a notional excess .,,;, · . ·. : .: .. . ~ and the appellant I s contention that: factor 11C'! was simply either the ·· annual salary since;' it did not exceed the celling . or the difference between factor 11811 and the ceiling mentioned for factor _ 11C" is in the •. ,.~ teeth of the plain language· used in the• sec.ti on ,an~ ... can simply not be .. : ·: entertained. We dismiss this appeal with·tosts;~subject, of course, to the consideration that the appel'lant is legally aided. ,•, .... ,--· -··· . . ~ ' ··- .... __ - - ···•-...- - • • r .~, 'I. I ri .... ~n t" •. "'• I .,,i-, ( L.. .. ' >fl r•\,-,.,1 ... . ;::~ ,''' ' ' r . . - ...... _ · -· ·., · • · i ·•·rr ! '·• t~..- . v11 . ·• · l . , . l ..... : I •~•· ,,· • .. 1, ·!-'·. : . . , . , i •• · • • • ' . : .. ~ . ' I . -. -, ' i <: · · ... ;. ,_ ·· . ,_. .~ .•. . . • • -· • : - . ~ I . - ' . : -~ .. ~ · ·· ? .· ,1 •. • . . :· . . . . . ' '. . ·" ·.~: . . :•;ct• ... ~~ dlSUt .. l ;~:)~·:: ~· ,. . , ·, -~ i : ·f>",\ ..... r, . :·if; .~rt r ·., .. .(':· ·- . .. . '·• • • • - · · · : · • · •·•·• • • 1 •.• ;•·.•i.~"• ~ •••••• • • •• ••••• • •••••• . ·,· · ·•. ,; :·• irJ!;JM M:· S ·· ~f1·ii«gulube ,. DEPUTY CHIEF ~JUSTICE ,. ·~· '.,..-,..,.:~ ... '' ': ~ .. · •.· ' • I