Kabumbwe (t/a Carlitas hair saloon) v Liase Properties Ltd (SCZ Appeal 2 of 1993) [1993] ZMSC 50 (13 March 1993)

1R THE >J?xt3E CQUxl OF ZmblA 3CZ NU. 2 OF 1993 HOLDtw AT LUSAKA 3 E T E c H; COLtErt ED I NAH KA3U;Ul£ (t/a LAilLIIAS HAIR .sALuud) Appellant And Linac PROPERTIES LIMITED Respondent CdRAil: Gardner, Sakai a, Cnirwa JJo., 13ln rlarch, 1993 For the Appellant: Mwansa E.d. M. Chambers For the Respondent: o.u. 3anda mangvia Chambers ■J U D u n E U 1 Gardner j.u. uel iverm Lie iu.^nunt ol trie court. ar. >.c_i'»sa ou o-i. Hii? of tne mmlimt do; r.mtc t* n, iKwqfi at one tide the ^juolmnis -.v.-ro suuteuahts of feta Joe UmI-a, ^jo v>ere cue tenants or me respondent, unu, dltnuc iii they and me ocorr mnints >«., .i a^<-.tin^ at which to?/ agreed mat rents would op /uid direct m t.k. i/s. A/r.u.u ms te.au or through rrea Joe ui'iiiles, r.;:/. s ziniimti ooca/e direct O-umts d »u rciponuent w;n?n me respondent ■ ><<■’ wriudj lecterj direct tc coy; c-; iu id.in^ n<c rent po/auie mJ wne.i the reS;wno<':u a„ ;li< for itjte cuiisenL i _r incr'--.-isii'.:, rent mcudtinj that mere wuui:' oe a uiroct leusy jetween m? rtsosiid-o;, and the appellant. ■r. oaujij nos 'rfpcm vtit H was ni-yer tiii iuit'itioii or the responde.il to <reutc j direct i&ici Em tpcelicnt c/u l.ml i.r.' u,viication fur utute consent was solr-ly for tne .-urpose uf- sotimm, ,mrjusim to i.iur-jase thu rent. L;e lyarnou trial discharged? m;- injunctioff in this case on cue jrotinus Inal co her «ituwle‘j.,j uf previous oruseo.'i i > m-~ io. el lant ■■i^ a suoteiicnc uf Fred uu>? li-u mJ. are also c.»or- mat t.ie f es.ionuftnt w-i:. ctty.ipting to uiutdin '.lossession ut cue wuole .of me hmns-'s m ur.j\r to csrry out j r-.:constructiu:i Hro,rp i«. w-ka-.,fve *im t. mrim mat in muso circutist<.mc?s it cannot nave t.-? •/ the incy itLin at c.i? parties tu ermee a nyw direct lease oetween taeifi. !./•••• - J2 That being so whether or not damages would oe a sufficient remedy in this case is irrelevant. We agree with the learned judge in Lie court below chat this is not an appropriate case for an injunction and the appeal is dismissed. Costs will follow the event. 3. T. GARDNER SUPREME COURT JUDGE c. L. SAKALA SUPREME COURI JUDGE 0. K. CHIRUA SUPREME COURT JUDGE