Mphalo and Others v Galaunia Farms (Private) Limited and Others (HP 966 of 2013) [2014] ZMHC 72 (22 July 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA AT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY (Civil Jurisdiction) 2013/HP/0966 BETWEEN: c o u r t ' ALFRED MPHALO & 1222 Ol * X PLAINTIFFS AND * 3 JU i 2'dtt GALAUNIA FARMS (PRIVATE) LIMITEl *7, L ' J S ^ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CHONGWE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1st DEFENDANT 2nd DEFENDANT 3rd DEFENDANT Before the Hon. Mr. Justice D. Y. Sichinga, SC in Chambers at Lusaka on the 23rd day of July, 2014 For the Plaintiffs Ms. M. Mushipe of Messrs Mushipe and Associates For the 1st Defendant Mr. A. Dudhia, Mr. M. Ndalameta of Messrs Dudhia and Co. For the 2nd Defendant No Appearance For the 2nd Defendant Ms. T. Bulaka of Messrs Chifumu Banda and Associates R U L I N G This is the Plaintiffs application for Review of Ruling dated 7th October 2013 pursuant to Order 39 o f the High Court Rule Chapter 27 o f the Laws o f Zambia; for an Order to amend the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to Order 20 Rule 5 o f the Rules o f the Supreme Court 1999 Edition. Rl I also note there is an application for stay of execution pending determination of review of Judgment. The application for Review is supported by an affidavit filed on 22nd October 2013, affidavit in Reply dated 5th February 2014 and further affidavit filed on the 24th February 2014. The application is opposed to by an affidavit filed by the First Defendant dated 24th January 2014; an affidavit filed by the Third Defendant dated 13th November 2013 and their skeleton arguments. I have carefully considered the affidavits in support of this application deposed to by the First Plaintiff, Alfred Mphalo and they do not reveal any new facts to the facts that this court had at the time that it considered its Ruling of 7th October 2013. In my considered view since the Plaintiffs were relying on the same arguments and facts raised at the time of hearing the Preliminary Issues, the correct course to take would have been to appeal the Ruling. I will not consider the application for leave to amend statement of claim and writ as I will not proceed to hear this matter at trial. R2 However, I have equally considered the application to stay my Ruling of 7th October 2014 and I do not consider that the Plaintiffs have shown any likelihood of success. For the reasons advanced above, I decline to review my Ruling of 7th October 2013, and I equally decline to grant a stay in this matter. The application for Review and for Stay of execution are both dismissed with costs to the Defendants to be taxed in default of agreement. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted. This matter will now be sent to the Judge-in-charge for reallocation. Delivered this 23rd day of July 2014. D. , SC R3