Katyoka v Jabi (Appeal 51 of 1993) [1994] ZMSC 162 (8 February 1994)

gouat fm z/vibia APPEAL AO. el Jr 1 J JJ lluLOEd AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) 3 c I U c E A: Patrick o. Katyoku Appellant And mohammed Jabi despondent Coram: Gardner, oakaia and .luzyamoa JJJ3., 8tn February, 1994 A.i-1. Kasonde of Messrs Kasonde and Co., appeared for the appellant. R. M. Simeza of KMA Chongwe and Co., appeared for the respondent. J J 0 G M E A T Gardner J. S. delivered the Judgment of the court. fills is an appeal against an order uiaco on a ,-<raiiminviry issue jj cue iiigit Court that a notice of discontinuance riled u/ cne plaintiff ms or no force and effect and tiiat cue trial of cue whole action including tile plaintiff's claim and cue counter-claim of cue defendant snodc proceed. file tacts of tills case arc tnac cue plaint!if, woo is cue' responoent to tills appeal issuou a writ ciai.iiing possession or a nouso in . Gtauioiiga, Lusaka. Ac also claimed mesne profits tor cue occupation of can nouse aliopaJly ‘without too authority of the plaintiff. Ino Joi'eiMt'nc coufitcr-cluiiiKiu maintaining that no was occupying the house as a prospective purenaser unaer a contract for sale of wnicii there hud oc-ea pure porforiianco. in tiurcii, is-Jd a notice or appoliitment of advocates was tileu iiiPiuacing tuac Messrs niciiard Agenda and Associates hud ueen appointed to assist cau plaintiff's advocates in i.tiis case. Ac cne Sanio time iiicuard Agenda anti ^ssocidtus filed a uucico of enu disconliuance of due plciintiTi'*s claim and iasiJa'; a . Mrruiic of distrosa wnicii tney ondeuvoured co enforce i.'gainsL eno uppellunc. ino appaiiu.if pro.iip ciy applied for, and r/us jrantard, an iiijUiiCGion au ;a\.venc toe opera tian of toe warrant of distress until such time us too uccion jcuooeii cue parties cas CUnlplOXOd. ■J................. I ,le aChlo!! :_t tills Li. Ki iUH been Set tiuWll iOF CFial f IF ilJ-lFnb; Oil Giie 1 1t;i W , 'IJJe3 by JO Ci Ct! dated triO dot.i i" eOrUar/» IjUJ. »C ■LUC1 SPaFliig c.pfore tne LjuniiM cr*iai co.^is-ionur, the advocates for tiiu pluisicirr/r^sponu^;! 11ki1caced c.iat cPey <iio not cmusIuv^p tnat cney were .rjiino oy cn? notice uc jiscoiitinuaiicu riled by djenua anu Associates because it die iiui comply ’.j!lu OPucr i? 1'010 1 Of cue XUlOS of Uie M-Jh doUFC jHC C^hjy dSKed tilai- tne i ul i dcciun s; iqiI io oe iiei.irc uh b>ie trial. Hie advocates ror cue uppelir.ii')b/uu’i'ui>uuiit up iilJj L.ldt tin' liwLlCS Of u X 3CO<! u1 nUdUCO WUS J;'i'JC Cl V<-j LilUt LilOrO H'di Hu iJeLU IGF J;!./ leave Tor SdS;i nOLlCe and in cOil.jeqi.tonCJ only the COUilCur-ciuH SHOiliu dealt tne vPidl. i.i= learned trial do^iAss.loner decided cnis preii .unary ibSue jj i'lnding tnur. uruer \/ rille i oruvinuu Li’iirc u notice vV AlJSuii LinOuHCu Cuui-.i -Ja SerVSO wlulOUt Jill / before eJe •tdto Of Lae liOLlLC i’lX.iiij tJO ujuc’ i'jr ui'idl UtiCi i-ildC dS Cildl H<iu HOC iJCGi'l .'.iui'lG Hi tikis CuSu iMO HGuiej Cl' ■.: 1 SCui)C.blJH:IC'.’ Udd ciicf i’ JC CiV-?. • Ie CilC'ii i’lelu CH<iu ill Cile 10bOrcd Co uc icir play uhu juscicu a ceil criai toucniH^ uucm cocn ciniuis slioulu oa iieiu, uiiu, rop Liijc pjosuii, no rudth.i Cituc Lhc notice or uiscoirtinuaiicc was invalid ciiiC jiiuv/'eu bile piuiiicir r1 s clai ii to nd- iie<ir<i &ccoroinjly. rne ijiaf’eiidaiic dpijcdlad gU tills <. UL;i'C JudlilSu CH'it oFUCr jild . IF. AUS0iiUdg oil UIS deildii 9 :ijS uTji/n •jup .:itt'j'ition to tsic ./urciiij or drJar 17 uUie 1, wiiiCii redds as follows;- "If oefore the date fixed for iiearinj, the plaintiff desires to discontinue any suit ajaiast all or any of the defendants or to withdraw any part of his alleged clai.n, ne snail give notice in writing of discontinuance or withdrawal to the Registrar and to every defendant as to whom he desires to discontinue or withdraw ...." iii<! i-jurii-;G gOjiuiIssloner in nis ruling saio:- "As regards Order 17 dap. JO of tne Laws of Zambia it is provided that notice to discontinue can only oe issued oefore the matter is set down for hearing, viy understanding of this rule is that where tne matter has already been set down for nearing the sarnie cannot oc discontinued by tile issue of a notice of discontinuance." , iC« P-kJ Cil'JC Lii-2 CJci CC’ f Of UOdfifrj 10 LU'CiilS Ui u»h_- OfuLn' >/dS vii’J fc.i.i.:VdnC .kl’Cej L.iz; j I’Ci: Of > M./ 9 IJJj, cold lUO. C, OS tilO j iU Cl 'ji? visr.uiiCl'.'JUi.iJCJ ;JuS SSPV^:J JitiOPv: CilCtC 'idCc, 1C 'JdS JTfOCviVO cUV-i f’O^U 1 feu : iU 1 Or tV1 ! > i iP. Uldi-OZa uh Oeilulf Of tik: reSpOHOPn t Likil Order i/ Of tile 'lljsi Court du les suoulo bo rcuu with order ._1 of Luo bupruw Court Fracuca ( ihc .'hide doozj. ine provisions of that order are tiiuc peneraiiy leave of i,iii court is requires oefure a plainciri' can discontinue iiis clai.u, except touc within 14 days after being served wicn tire Jef-ji ice a plaintiff can discontinue' witnout leave or cue court. .ir. oiareza argued twat, as tiiat period sincu uiie service of defence rias long since expired, leave of the court was required. Under tile provisions of tile -iijii Court /ret, section In, trie rules of toe diijiisii courts shall only oe considered in default of appropriate rules in Zdswia. In this case our own order 17 adequately tneals with discontinuance and the . Injlish Order 21 is irrelevant. Titis argument aiust cnorofore fail. ,ir. Siineza then urged this court that he should be allowed to continue with his action despite tire notice of discontinuance. Je are satisfied coat toe wording of Order 17, (<li1c 1 does not refer to discontinuance before the date of tire notice of sotting down for .rearing as thought oy the learned trial Cotwissionc-r. It refers specifically to rue data fixed for nearing, so that, if a notice of discontinuance is filed and served before tiie date fixed for nearing, in tills particular case the 11tn of .iay, TJUo it is valio. iir. oiuieza's argu/nencs that trie notice of discontinuance was invalid cannot succeed. Tire appellant therefore succeeds on this ground of appeal. file ,natter does not end there however. Ue have noticed chat cue learned trial judge ciade ills order on the grounds of fair play and justice and tne over­ riding need for justice to oe done octween tiie parties. In this case the plaintiff could, if we were co allow this appeal, issue a new writ on the sa.ne grounds as before, and could apply to nave the new action consolidated with tire old action with an order that cue pleadings of tire old action snould stand in tire now action. Tills would oe an unrrecessary waste- of tiaie and costs. de agree with tire lc-arnod trial CouWiissioirer tiiat tills case siioulu could to trial for tire .rearing bfr both tire claiui and tire counter-claiui. For chat reason, despice evre success of .-ir. hasund.i's cole arguiueuLS, L.re appeal is dismissed, fills is an appronrkxto case wirere cue costs of this appeal should ;.>e costs iri the cause, and we so order. J. T. Gardner SUPREME COURT JUDGE E. L. Sakala SUPREME COURf JUDGE W. M. iiuzyamba SUPREME CUU«r JUDGE