Tanzania Zambia Railway Authority v Chikwane (SCZ 8 205 of 1993) [1994] ZMSC 143 (20 September 1994)

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA ■ . III. N. I (Civil Jurisdiction) SCZ/S/205/1993 Appeal No. S3 OF 1994 BETWEEN: Tanzania Zambia Railway Authority Appellant and Peter If* Chlkwone Respondent Coram: Gardner. Ch al la and Chlrwa MS ’• ■_ ? •: • ■ . -W: V.-';.. . 20th September. 1994 L. Hyembole of Ellis and Co.. appeared for the appellant. No appearance for the respondent. rHiwiw.wi" *• . • ■ ■. min wmw.wmmwmiiii.i mu JUDGMENT Gardner J. S. delivered the judgment of the court There being no appearance before us on behalf oW^ respondent, this 1 ' ' , , 1 appeal was heard under the provisions of Rule 71 (1) (b) of the Supreme Court Rules The question of the action's being statute barred udder section 115 of the Tanzania Zambia Railway Authority Act Cap. 768 was raised before any of the evidence was heard. See page 31. where the respondent’s advocate asked for the action to be struck out. The action should have been struck out at that stage. The appeal is allowed. The order for payment of damages and costs is . • I ,, ,1 H - set aside. Costs to the appellant of this appeal and in the court below. The application set down for the 21st September, 1994 falls away. Liberty wy >■ to the respondent to apply. B. T» Gvdiw SWIiOg COURT J006C SUPREME COURT JUOGE IM IHE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEM AT LUSAKA Appeal No. 10/94 SCZ/3/192/93 (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: JAVEED IQBAL MALIK Appellant and PILATUS ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED Respondent CORAM: Chaila, Chinua and Nuzyamba JJJ. S. 29th March, 1994 For the Appellant : Mr. John Sangwa of R. M. A. Chongwe 4 Company For the Respondent : Mr. Chrlspln Muyoba of Munall Chambers RULING Chaila, J. S. delivered the ruling of the court. Before the appeal against the continuing of the injunction granted by the High Court in November 1993 was argued, the court Inquired from the appellant’s counsel on the status of the injunction and the position of the main case. Mr. Sangwa informed the court that although the learned trial judge had fixed trial dates in January and February of 1994 in respect of the main case, the case had, at the time of the hearing of the dissolution of the injunction been determined by the Deputy Registrar, in that the Deputy Registrar had given a sugary judgment tn favour of the respondent. The court Inquired from Mr. Sangwa whether or not that fact was brought to the attention of the learned trial judge. Mr. Sangwa said It had been brought to his attention. We have been unable to find any where in the record where the attention of the learned trial judge was drawn to that fact. It appears that the matter never came up on the fixed dates before the learned trial judge and the matter has not proceeded further. We drew Mr, Sangwa's attention to the Judge's rullngt- /2..."The Injunction