Zlatan Zlatko Anautovic v Stanbic Bank Zambia Ltd (Application SCZ 219 of 2006) [2008] ZMSC 33 (21 February 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA APPLICATION NO. SCZ/8/219 / 2006 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (CIVIL JURISDICTION) BETWEEN ZLATAN ZLATKO ARNAUTOVIC (cid:9) Appellant And STANBIC BANK ZAMBIA LTD (cid:9) Respondent Coram: (cid:9) Chirwa, Chitengi and Mushabati, JJS on 21st February 2008 and 25th June 2008 For the Applicant: (cid:9) For the Respondent: (cid:9) Mr L C Zulu, Malambo & Co. Ms L C Kasonde, Mulenga Mundashi & Co. RULING Chirwa, JS delivered the Ruling of the Court:- Cases referred to: 1. (cid:9) University Of Zambia Council V Jean Calder [19981 Z. R This is an application by the applicant, Zlatan Zlatko Anautovic, to lodge the record of appeal out of time and after the expiry of forty days extension granted by a single judge of the Court on 29th March 2007. The history of the matter is that there was a judgment of the High Court sometime in August 2006 against the applicant. After the judgment, the applicant applied to the High Court for the review of the judgment and this was refused on 12th January 2007. The record of R2 appeal could not be lodged within the normal 60 days and on 29th March 2007, the appellant obtained an unless order to file the record of appeal within 40 days failure to which the appeal was to be deemed dismissed. No record of appeal was filed within the extended time. The applicant filed this Notice of Motion on 7th June 2007 for the Court to further extend the time within which to file the record of appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant in which he gives the reasons for the delay. He alleges that he could not file the record of appeal within the 40 days extended period because the record is of five large volumes with thousands of pages and that the 40 days extension given by a single judge was not enough. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Zulu for the applicant made an application to amend the application to be made under Rule 12(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and not under Rule 48(4) as originally indicated. In arguing the application, Mr Zulu conceded that there ought to be sufficient reasons to extend the time beyond the unless order R4 been made to the single judge under Rule 12(1) of the Rules of Supreme Court, Cap. 25. The application before the full Court is incompetent. This Court would only have jurisdiction if the Judge refused the application. The application is therefore dismissed with costs. 0 K Chirwa JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT gi '\ (cid:9) C S Mushabati