Tedworth Properties v Anti- Corruption Commission and Anor (CAZ/O8/321/2024) [2025] ZMCA 122 (2 September 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) CAZ/08/321/2024 BE1WEEN: TEDWORTH PROPERTIES APPELLANT AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION 1 sr RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2ND RESPONDENT CORAM: Hon. Mr. Justice K. Muzenga in Chambers at Lusaka. For the Appellant: Mr. W. Kayope & Mr. Z. Sampa of Simeza Sangwa & Associates For the 1st Respondent: Ms T. Shumba, Acting Senior Legal & Prosecutions Officer For the 2nd Respondent: Ms Tamara Daliso Nyendwa, State Advocate, Attorney General's Chambers EX-TEMPORE RULING Legislation referred to: 1. The Court of Appeal Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 65 of 2016. 2. The Constitution of Zambia. R2 This is a notice of preliminary objection to the 1st respondent's heads of argument pursuant to Order 13 Rule 5(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. I have carefully considered the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the appellant, the arguments for and against the preliminary objection. It is trite that the respondent in an appeal must file their arguments within 30 days from date of being served with the record of appeal and heads of arguments as provided in Order 10 Rule 9(16) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The preliminary objection is to the effect that 1st respondent's arguments were filed 151 days after the prescribed 30 days period. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent's arguments were filed outside the stipulated 30 days period and without leave of court. Learned counsel for 1st respondent has argued that the Rules do not provide for sanctions for default and since no prejudice has been occasioned to the appellant, and also in the light of Article 118 of the Constitution, the arguments should not be expunged. I must state that Order 10 Rule 9(16) of the Court of Appeal Rules is couched in mandatory terms. Therefore, whether no sanction is provided for default, any documents filed in contravention of the order R3 are irregularly before the court and the consequence that befalls irregular documents is eviction from the cause. The constitutional provision that learned counsel sought to rely on does not licence contumelious disregard of the procedural Rules, otherwise there would be chaos in the justice system as parties will choose to self enact timelines, all in an attempt to hide behind Article 118. The Rules of procedure are meant to ensure speedy and orderly dispensation of justice. These Rules must be obeyed by the parties at all times and a party who chooses to ignore Rules of court does so at his, her or its own peril. Therefore, since the 1st respondent's arguments were filed outside the prescribed 30 days and without leave of the court, they are irregularly before the court and I accordingly expunge them from the record . I award costs of this preliminary objection to the appellant payable forthwith and to be taxed in default of agreement. Dated this 2nd day of September 2025 K. Muzenga COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE