Mwiinga v National Agriculture Marketing Board (SCZ Appeal 101 of 1995) [1997] ZMSC 38 (11 July 1997)

IN Th SUP (cid:9) wawa AT LUSAKA (Civil Airiscliction) A (cid:9) SC! Appeal lte. 101 of 19/5 SfklE SILL ;MLA " Appeliant SATIOWL A6?ICULTV#E tM11 " Respondent . (cid:9) Cairwa (cid:9) and (cid:9) altuyamba (cid:9) J'. . üth (cid:9) ry,13,J a043Ilcn Jpiy. 1941 For the Appeliint (cid:9) In person For the. Wespon (cid:9) : kr. R. Si of (cid:9) ns Simeza (cid:9) company JUDGME t J. S. delivered the judgment of the court. In this appeal th issue involved is a thim by the appellant (herein after called the plaintiff) that wnen he was employed by tue rispondent (herein after called the defendant) he was given a wrong grading 1.o. $13/10 instead of S arid that nks scale must be up graded to $6. Briefly th Cast were tha was yed by the efeniont es security officer. (cid:9) He responded to the advertisement end ne was interviewed and tat during (cid:9) interview he was (cid:9) formed that tne Job he was being interviewed for was at scale SO. He was surprised subsequently to get an offer at the scale of (cid:9) no inquired from the Chief of Security why he was offered a lower grade. (cid:9) He was promised that they would look into the matter. de accepted the offer given to him and started work. /10. (cid:9) He put up representations to the management apout tne scaie but the management did not change the 34410. (cid:9) He was later retired and took matter nodstrial Relations up Court claiming Status by 'lot D had been discridnated On social offered the promised Scale, (cid:9) The case was dismissed' for lack of mer In his appeal he has argued (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) 4P tnet court Dela* erre (ay ignoring the courtfurnr erred in an addressing UseT or:mature retirement and tnC w was discriminated. h' further argued 01A court rrei 1 lag and fact when it refund to an order (cid:9) r on the .itiestion of scte and In his favour. ndent Mr. :Simon submitted tat tne evidence in tne lower court was very (cid:9) ô 5 given on offor or too OPOuintment at (cid:9) The plaintiff plaintiff ccce?ted the offer arid signed for it. $t submittedthat toare was no evidence to support the (cid:9) the one contained (cid:9) WAS ala other ha (cid:9) PL 4. status the counsel ar3ved that till appellant. nOt discriminated on eny ground. (cid:9) Ngmira vs Zambia National Insurance Brokers Limited and urged relied on tne case of Che court to dismiss the Appeal. On the question of premature retirement Mr. Simeta argued that i r as an an issue before the Industrie! Relations Court and that struck out. We seriously considered tne submissions both A Snd tnose prtsented Dy tne pialntlPf. Tile plaintiff dive (cid:9) interviewed for tne security He *AS offered toe post at 413/ (cid:9) and ha acceoted the offer and reported for Kt may awe made representations apout tna scale but fact is ?dpp y wilt?} , offer ilven to him. (cid:9) If tie were nad the appolntme The appeal tinct succeed uo tile ground'that during el Men (cid:9) of So wus aada. On sqcial status IL must be observed th (cid:9) the epoeliant was nut an employee of ation when he applied for the post. The evidence an wht) applied end a good there were several number of and offered u ts at $1 3/1 0. (cid:9) Tee plaiot ff aid act (cid:9) duce any evidence to snow that 3o was offered 413 tt3ktnt he as discriminated SOC! lower court was right in reject h• ground of discriafln3ti00 of social status. Cani 4round. tin /3 (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) Ji (cid:9) - pi intift raised ke(Qra us th (cid:9) question retirement. As r“Otly observed by Mr. Si4 4:1 issue in ac lower court. ruck out. We cannot therefore consider this ques reasonswe nave given above this I is isssd. We make no order as to costs. *00 *** * * * * * * * (cid:9) 0*** ****** N. S. Cholla SUPREME COURT JUDGE 0.k. 2..aire S P ENE COURT JtJ DGE *** Ala. 4** ***************** a. M. Mu ,71Ja SUPREME COURT 4U06E