Leopard Investment Company Limited v Joan Irwin (SCZ/8/222/2003) [2003] ZMSC 183 (1 October 2003)

\ - SCZ/8/222/20C13 APPELLANT JOAN IRWIN ., · CORAM·:.. - .- D. K. Chfr-wa in October· 2903 for the Appettont· . For the Respond~~t: i . RE_SPONDENT ... . . . ·, ,· . / Mr~ J. Sangwa of Sl~ezo So : · "'. •:· ~ -.. ng~~ : • sso.cfates · ti · · ·:/,. R. M. A; Chon~~~ ,of,:RMi\C~Ori\t~J~ & Co. · &.. A . · . .- .. . RULING .• • I ' I\ I ! ' \ \ , I . I I . \ I I 1. ) Ca$e referred to: ,. . . . . . . -CHIKUTAV CHIPATA RURAL ~OUNG~~>Il~7.4] Z:. R.:-241 -_. . . . . ·. ' : ;his is ~ :rippeal from dec;~ions cind ~rder~ ~~~e by the High Court . . The first application is for leave o( the·c~url, '!Vhith :. Vas denied by the High Court, to oppectl agair.ist the f~fu~al of t~e.f:iigh 601.1ft tp Set . aside the order for stay of execution iu~gment gfarjte8· on . 9th • September 2003 on the grounds of. lrreguiarity. Meorllhg JhaU~e· st<lY . order was obtained irregularly. The secoi;td <;iPplicatibti'. Is: f\:irieciY~ of. the court to appeal against the leave g(ant~~ :tb.·thi{resdOnoerit to · review the judgement of 2nd September 20Q3;Jflis ()rd~(jO .. iei{i~v./the t of 21'ld September 2003 wos_.grante.d--o"n· ·l7.tb . ·se~•e·m···ber· . d Ju gemen _ By this application, cin order _Is prove.1 f ~tls ,~:'sta)i_;Oft~e~iJtio~ _of. the order to review of judgment of 2nd Sept~Qer 2b03?6rid\i6; s~y 011 · · -· ::•·: -.·.·· ·· ·: ~ · · · : · 1h lenvo l r, (AVieW' is determined. ·ngs related to the review u·htil;_the· ·:appecil- ag·: :, ainst··\the . , ·. · ·· · · · '' . '<'': ',::-, .. ·-. :· . . ·: " . e procee ' ·· · -·· - ..· ·· · - - · d I · I I ! : i ! I I. I . I . i ' I I . II . . ; j : ; I ' . I I There· Iha t allowed th · is Yet a nether : R2: prayer that the order of l 7~h September 2003 of the remain' 0 ppeal cg . affidavits ing extent b a1nst fhot e respondent t 0 go back to farm No. 452A, Sub. Div. B e 5 ayed until after the determinat.ion of the t . :Oroer. The applications are supported by two ; o _ne by Counsel for the .ap~li~ant . and the second, by . the appltcant company. There.-is:a1so·an affidavit· • . . . . eneral Manager f G . in oppos1t1on by counsel for the respondent. _ . . . . . , . . . . ~ . · . : · The affidavit by counsel for the a~plic9~.t give.s · the history of the matter 0nd this ls that the applicant applied to the: ~lgh Court for .on order of po ssess on of Sub. Div. B of the re~aining ~xtent of-farm No~ . 452A Lusaka. On~ 2!'ld September 2003 : .fh~.-. Hl@h · c~.urt d·euver~d its judgment in favour of the applicant. · 08· 5~h- se~t~rnber 2003 th·e advocates for the applican1 applied for a .writ pf po~~-'f,-~s_ion: Whlch was duly issued on 8th September 2003 ond the same w.a's executed on the same day and the respondent was remove.d from· ~h~· tiol!se·. On 9th September 2003 the respondent 9ppli~d -for st~y of.$~~cution qf the 2nd September 2003 judgment and the . wr~t-·of . po'ssesston cjf 8th September 2003 pending an application fo·r review of th~ 2nd September 2003 judgment under Order 39 or_the_ Hig~ :q~urt Rules. This . . , . . . . . . . - : . ~ was dully granted and the hearing date for :re~ie~ ':"as se:f f<;?r the 17th September 2003. On 15th September 200~- the· a9voc9t.es for .th~ t ff led a notice to raise a prellrnlnary .. issue ·to .. se.t : astde the toy Of execution for irregularity. Th~ qpplicotion ·to set .aside ; execution wos refused- bY. the . learned trial :judge and . opp icon ~ I · · .. , · • . . : : · . · .- . l against that refusal was also refused; .. The coµrt· -then . . . . . . . r er ors f 0 d the order or · · · . · .- · · - : . h or the application for review its judgrnent ·anq_· a~er: the · · · · : . . , · . . d'. cted ·to re-open the case a0d r~~eive -fresh eviq~nce on · · An application to set aside· f he order to re.~open the · · · • : · · a leave to appe went on to e heanng. 1t ne 1 st October · case and receive .•. ,··. I , : R3 ! . . i fresh ev/den further Proc ce ofter rev·e eedings in th . . , .. wing the Judgment was re.fused . .. A stay of t O re op - through It is f urther said th t e rnS1tter vvas also refused. a after the court refused to set aside tt1e order '. ose 0nd receive fr<?sh evidence, :\ the respondent counsel, made representation that she had no wh.ere to stay. en the c .; : .. : . as th e court w . :; . representation th . go back to the p as going to reuhear the matter : and· ·otter such . • e court made an order allowing the · respondent to · :·· . · · roperty 1n dispute. An appl-icat:ion for ~eave. to appeal . . · against the ord II , er a owing the respondent .back onto t,he property was refused, equally refused was the application to stay thfj· order allowing · • ' the responden.t to back to the property. ( The affidavit on behalf of the respon_dent blt11ough originally was - objected to but tater the objection withdrown, t<;:mn~t .pa·ss v-1ithout .\ . . -, con1n"lents from this court. The affidavit not o_nly goes·agai~··st whqt was stated by this court in CHIKUTA V CHIP~TA . RURAL (1) · where w expressed in the undesirability of co.unsel ·sweating :\ a~davits • • • • • • • ! : . Rules. contenfioU$ matter but lt is totally against Order 5 o.f the High ~ourt It contains extraneous matters svch os legal argun,ents, if afs_o contains staten1ents of facts which clearly ·ore not _within c~unsel 1s . ' ) knowledge such as paragraphs 3, 4 an~ 6 are in tl'.'1e poi~t-:·l.:a~1 trying to say. Be as it may, 1 will consider the application 9ased ~tl the· affidavit I must .confess that -the off.idavit is sel for the oppficant. ·. · f tt o ,1e coun • d t Otally tnd equ Qenes1s of f hrs m ate to enable rne to make· a · sound. d$clsion~ The . . . otter is the application for reviev•i. It is said that n9tice ·. · . : . . . i e p"efiminary objection or issue -on the· applicotio•n for was f 1led to ro s I eave to review. . was said ,n t e . to t e 0 1ecf b . . 0 )Jection must be s · have not been ava:led with lh~se;: opj~crions. As course of the hearing . in the· abort$.9 preliminary h . h aff'idavit in opposition, -.tbe grounds: of s·ucn·. an · . · : . · . It · i... 1s no enovg._i.:1 to merely · fated in such a no ice. · t ran . · · : . · t· · : . . · · . . . · . · . · . ; . · ! I \ \ I t •, :· ; :_:•: ' ! .: : R4 : I I I ; I\ , , : . ' . • ' state 1hat t . . . the 1rregufa(t If these c he 0 PPlicoti . ts ,t on , Y. annot -be sp It , irfegularitie , . only that th s Were reve I d • . , e ruling of th enough to avail . . . t · on should be set aside for irregularity. What is . P010 of Jurisdiction; point of procequre or law. . . e out, then the proceeding~ on which these 0 e ought to ~ave been : availed to me. Not . . no contain any t learned ·ud e J 9 of material on wh· h th . e court has no1 been availed to _me. Jt ts not an order prepared by counsel because the order does · reasons for reaching a.dec.is1on. How can I favlt the . · .: .· · In the absence of all these· motetials? There 1s also lack . . : · · . . Jc e_ J~dge granted on ·e~"parte ~fay of execution : · -·. · · ·t· th of his judgment bee · , ouse I e materla.1 sho~ed tho . judgment had been executed, t~ere w~uld be nothing to-.. stpy .. Counsel mus.t. le~rn to come ouf fully with all the ·materials' for the .court to make q :meanjngfut decision. .. ~ . . · . . . . ~. t · ·. . ) As already stated; the genesis of the matter is the review of-the lower court•s judgment of 2nd September ~003. Po~ers <?f ,revi~w ·by the judge under Order 39 of the Rules of ·f he_: Hi_gh Co~rt are. v:erv ~de. The judge may re-open the case and oc~ept fres~ evip~n.ce, ~a·ry ~r .· · • ... . _.. reverse the previous judgnient. The a~tion in th1s• ._matter wa'~ •for· possession of Sub-div. B of the Rem~Ining . Ex,t~_r,it of Farn:1 452A, Lusaka. It has been deposed that having obtafne~~J-.jµd~ment in Jts :~a~our~ fhe .. t executed the same on · 810 · Sept~rnber · 2003· · and . the f were given possession of the far • on, that da. according to . . opp rcan I . apphcan the Sheriff's oebi~and Advic~ note. T~e .j~dg~ent ha~i?g :·~_een·: - d execute , ------w-as no rocess to be sta e as 1he sub·ect matter had . At law there • d . I agree with the position to . b~ stayed. qs the sutiiect been sat1sf1e · . - -~b- ·en 50t·1stied . . 1 agree with the posrtion otthe 1.aw on the - matter hod e_ ;-- r cJon<)t a~re~ with Dr, Choq~~~ s _subn:,~s~1ory _thqt -!i1$r:e . . ~ rt· r execution in this matt~r because some:·c,t the . hcs been po 10 there is nothing to stay, possession .. · _vi . . hee · obtai . . · · : · . . : . _· · -.. · • · : . · ·. ~ .. . _:. · : · . . . • . . · · · . · · · . I .. - = . . . . • '. I I I ' \ \ I ,. I: ,, i \ I r : R5 : . re$pondent· s . this is hears Property is sfill I th Dr. Chongw , . ay ond the m ff e s knowled If n e house. I don't agree because, firstly 0 er deposed of cire not stated to be within . · · ~o in hls affid . : ge. he was told .by his client, he does not say ov,t, which as I s Id would t beca no agree w·th .,. use the clairn . · no Parhal Possession. ' · · O earher is very defective. Also at law, I I Dr. Chongwe that there was partiar execution · was for possession of the house and ··there ca·n be . . . . : It Will be obs d · . , · . in my n;hng that f have· not discussed the · app Y c;,r review as I have. not been glve.n -sufficient erve I f : , · · merits of 1eave to ~ea~onin_g of the materials on whic~ this l~~ve was applie.d for .and th~ . . . . . .. . . . . . judge.; On the eviden~e ·before me, I .artl-·satisfied --that ·there· .was judgment in favour of the applic.ant for po~session· ol 1he·:house on Sub. Division B of the Remoini~g Extent. of form·. 452A: ~nd the· -·sdme wq~ . taken pos·session of. I have been concerned With th~ rast. ofder of the lower court of ordering and letting the i-esp9f:ld_eot go b.ack. io th~ house. Judgment having been executed, until :dJsturped on-revie~Qf '· appeaL thaf judgment sfanqs .. The judge becomes fun o · io until _he exer~ise . his· o~ers In conclusion· and for avolda·nce of any doubt, l'Tefuse un er lo gr~ all f h~ prayers asked for In _thls applic_9.tlo.n ~xcept for the order O dent g oes back to .-the property.: I decline to Issue ·the • . • for because insufficient mat~riol hos be·en ·presented · d O der 39 · r · t ha1 the~esp orders ·. · . . · . . · . · . · · · -'. efore me o t e b • order quas~ - . Property IS bOS~ - - - - : nable me make any meanin•gful_judious decision. _:My ----c._....;..- the order allowing the respQ.n~ent- .to_-_-re.turn• to ·th~ · . . · d on the execut<9d 1udgm~nt V,1h1ch stands :until · :· . . . · ·, · . · · · . . . . - .. . . . '. . . ' : R6: iversed or VOried on review which process is in progress . . My reasons )r doing so Ore contained In the ruling. Each party will. beqr his. own :)Sfs. \ . \ . \ . . • • • > .. ) . ' . • I • ji; ·' i I \ I. \ \_· , . I I , \ \ I :;.• I