Godfrey Daka and Ors v Zambia Railways Ltd (SCZ Appeal 56 of 98) [2001] ZMSC 114 (19 April 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT KABWE (Civil Jurisdiction) SCZ APPEAL NO. 56/98 BETWEEN: GODFREY DAKA & 210 OTHERS APPELANTS AND ZAMBIA RAILWAYS LIMITED RESPONDENTS Coram. Chaila, Chirwa and Lewanika, JJS 8th November 2000 and 19th April, 2001 For the Appellant: NIL For the Respondent: Mr. M. Nsefu, Company Secretary ______________________ __________________ JUDGMENT__________________ Chaila, JS, delivered the judgment of the court. When we heard the appeal, there was no appearance for the appellant but Mr. Nsefu informed the court that Mr. Mwale who had conduct of the case for the appellants has written a note saying that he was unwell and was unable to attend. Mr. Mwale, however, wanted the matter to proceed in his absence. He wanted the court to consider his heads of argument filed with the court. Tire appeal, therefore, proceeded as per Mr. Mwale’s request. - J2 - This is a Motion by the appellants for this court to correct accidental slips or omissions in the judgment delivered on 6th April 2000. The application is based on the following grounds: 1. The Honourable court made an accidental slip or omission in holding that the trial court was on firm ground in deciding not to award damages for Breach of Contract to the appellants. The appellants relied on the failure to follow the procedure to amend the Collective Agreement, which rendered termination by way of retrenchment unlawful or wrongful. 2. The court on arriving at its judgment did not apply the law as applicable. In support of their Motion, the appellants filed an Affidavit containing 34 paragraphs, in which they attempted to argue their case. The applicants, through their advocates, filed a detailed written heads of argument. Mr. Nsefu also filed short heads of argument and relied upon them. Mr. Mwale in his argument told the respondent that the motion was provided under Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules Cap. 25 and that they contend that there were some accidental slips and omissions in the analysis of the evidence, which led to an unsatisfactory decision being arrived at that and in our judgment, the court accidentally overlooked the relevant Statute law and stare decisis, which resulted in unsatisfactory judgment. The counsel attempted to point out the accidental slips and omissions in the evidence and went to town - 3 - to refer to various decisions of the Supreme Court. They later attempted to consider omission on the law applicable in the Amendment of the Collective Agreement and they have urged the court to correct its judgment. In responding to the applicants’ heads of argument, Mr. Nsefu has referred us to the provisions of Rule 78 of the Supreme Court, which read: “Clerical errors by the Court or a Judge thereof in documents or process, or in any judgment, or errors therein arising from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court or a Judge thereof Mr. Nsefu argued that the judgment delivered on 6th April 2000 was very clear. The judgment had no clerical errors, accidental slips or omissions. He has argued further that from the applicants’ Motion and heads of argument, it was very clear upon reading the two documents that the applicants’ motive is to re-appeal and not to correct errors, slips or omissions as alleged. We have considered the Motion, the Affidavit in support and the heads of argument of both counsel. The Affidavit and the applicants’ counsel’s arguments, in our view, do not point out any slips or omissions. The Motion, the Affidavit and the heads of argmnent are talking about the failure to review evidence and failure to apply the correct law. These in our view, are not matters intended by Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules. We are inclined to agree with the position taken by the respondent’s counsel that the applicants’ motive is to re-appeal. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application. Our judgment was very clear; it has no slips, no - J4 - omissions and no errors. The Motion, therefore, is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. M. S. CHAILA SUPREME COURT JUDGE D. K. CHIRWA SUPREME COURT JUDGE D. M. LEWANIKA SUPREME COURT JUDGE