Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd & Another v Khama (Appeal 71 of 2001) [2004] ZMSC 10 (2 March 2004)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2001 (CIVIL JURISDICTION) BETWEEN: ZAMBIA CONSOLIDATED COPPER MINES LTD 1st Appellant 0 K SIMWINGA 2" Appellant AND DR FRANCIS ICHA1VIA (cid:9) Respondent Coram: Chinva, Chibesakunda, Silomba, MS on 2" March, 2004 For the Appellant: Mr 0 K Simvvinga For the Respondent: In Person JUDGMENT Chirwa, IS delivered the judgment of the Court The respondent filed a notice of motion under Rule 78 of the Rules of Supreme Court by which motion the respondent moves this court to reverse its decision as far as its ruling against him being entitled to purchase House No. 54, Lantana Avenue, Luanshya. In attempt to further this motion, the respondent wished to adduce evidence of the contract entered into between the 1st appellant and Ms E Zimba in respect of a Sale Agreement in relation to house No. 54, Lantana Avenue, Luanshya. He also wishes to attack the judgment where it says that the rd appellant has paid full price for the house when in actual fact the J2 purchase was to be deducted from the terminal benefits. In trying elucidate his motion, Dr Khama, appearing in person, referred us to Presidential decree of enabling Zambians who are sitting tenants in parastatal houses to purchase the same. He has further alluded to press reports that there are infact some non-sitting tenants who have been sold houses by the Is' appellant and that such matters were subject to a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the government which was appointed to look into the sale of ZCCM houses. We have looked at the respondent's heads of arguments supporting this motion and rule 78 and also the affidavit in support to adduce the fresh evidence which touches 1St appellant and some other person not related to the contract between the the proceedings under consideration. Dr Khama has been unable to pin-point in our judgment any slip which can warrant the use of Rule 78 of the Rules of Supreme Court. The fact that there may be some other people who have been unduly favoured and are not sitting tenants but have been allowed to purchase ZCCM houses, can not be a basis of which to invoke Rule 78. We see no slip in our judgment. Infact the respondent has attempted to re-open his appeal or to ask us to review our judgment. The court has no powers to review its judgments or to re-hear an appeal once judgment has been rendered. t J3 We see no merit in this motion and it is dismissed. We make no orders to costs. D K Chirwa JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT L P Chibesakunda JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT S S Silomba JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT