Zope v State Lottery of Zambia (SCZ Appeal 41 of 1990) [1991] ZMSC 49 (16 July 1991)

4 (■ ‘”W IM THE SUPREME COURT OF WmA SCZ APPEAL HQ. 8/41/50 HOLO AT LUSAKA ^Civl1 Jurisdiction) PRA3HAXAR JAVARAMBHAI ZOPE Applicant STATE LOTTERY OF ZAM3IA Respondent CORAM: Gardner, AJ.5 Sakala ami Chai la* JJ. S. 16th July 1591 Mr. Kasoode of Messrs Kasonda and Co. for the applicant Hr. Klnarlwala of Legal Services Corporation for the respondent J U & G M E N Gardner, AJ. S, delivered the judgment of the court Case referred to: (1) Lusaka West Development Co. a Others v Turnkey Properties Ltd. SCZ Wo. a (1990) This is an application for leave to appeal against a consent order discharging an injunction restraining the respondent from taking possession of a house occupied by the applicant. This matter has already been dealt with by a single judge of this court and dismissed* but it is now referred to the full court for further consideration. The facts of tne case are that the applicant is the tenant of a house belonging to the respondent. During the course of the proceedings brought by the respondent for possession of the premises, the applicant applied for and was granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the applicant from the premises. That order was granted ex parte. At the inter partes bearing, counsel for the applicant told the court that his client consented to a discharge of the injunction and^' '- because of that declaration by counsel, the injunction was discharged. Thia application is for leave to appeal against that order of discharge. j J? : When the case camo before us at first wa wore concerned in case there might have bean a mistake between the applicant and his counsel as to the instructions which counsel thought h® had been -given and, for that punxise, we asked both counsel to file further affidavits* Those affidavits have now been filed, and from them wo hove seen that no mistake arose between counsel and his client. Instead there is a direct conflict between them as to whether or not instructions for the consent to the discharge ware given at all. In those circums­ tances, in the absence of any mistake, the low referred to by the single judge of tnls court, that is the learned Deputy Chief Justice, as set out in the case of Lusaka west Oevolopaent Co. and Others v Turnkey Properties Limited (1) must stand. That judgment made it quite clear that counselJs held out as an agent authorised to settle any action In court and when counsel states to the court that an action is settled both the court and the opposition party is entitled to accept that statement which is binding on his own client. for those reasons this application is dismissed with costs. S. T. GAOiER AG. SUPREME COURT JUDGE E* L. SAKALA SUPREME COURT JUOBE X. 5. CHA1LA SUPREME COURT JUDGE