SCZ Judgment No. 28 of 2014
P664
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA Appeals No. 125, 141 and 179 /2012
HOLDEN AT LUSAKA
(Civil Jurisdiction)
IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 72 (1) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 93 (1) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT NO. 12 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
NEWTON MALWA APPELLANT
AND
LUCKY MULUSA 1ST RESPONDENT
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF ZAMBIA 2ND RESPONDENT
BETWEEN:
SAUL ZULU APPELLANT
AND
VICTORIA KALIMA 1ST RESPONDENT
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF ZAMBIA 2ND RESPONDENT
BETWEEN:
DAVIES CHISOPA APPELLANT
AND
SYDNEY CHISANGA 1ST RESPONDENT
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF ZAMBIA 2ND RESPONDENT
Coram: Mwanamwambwa, Actg D.C.J, Chibomba, Phiri, and Wanki, Muyovwe, J.J.S.,
Lisimba, Kaoma, Ag J.J.S.
On the 3rd day of July 2014
P665
For the 1st Appellants: 1. Mr. B.C. Mutale, S.C., and with him,
Mr. M.K. Kaunda both of Messrs Ellis and Company.
2. Mr. A.D. M. Mumba of Messrs. A.D.
Mwansa Mumba & Associates.
For the 1st Respondents: 1. Mr. E. S. Silwamba, S.C. and with
him, Mr. A. J. Jalasi both of Silwamba, Jalasi and Linyama, Legal Practitioners.
2. Mr. M. Chitambala of Messrs Lukona
Chambers .
3. Major C.A. Lisita of Messrs Central Chambers.
For the 2nd Respondent: In house Legal Counsel
Mwanamwambwa, Act. D.C.J., delivered the Ruling of the Court
Cases referred to:
1. Vincent I. Mwale v Eustarkio Kazonga & Another– Appeal No. 123/2012.
2. Christabel Ngimbu v Charles Kakoma & AnotherAppeal No. 19/2013.
Legislation referred to:
1. Rules of the Supreme Court, 1999. Order 4. Rule 9 (1)
Other Works referred to:
1. Atkin’s Court Forms2nd Edition. Volume 37 (1995 Issue), pages 196 and 211.
P666
On 12th February 2014, we stayed proceedings in these three motions, until after determination of the two earlier motions, involving Vincent Mwale v Eustarkio Kazonga and Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ)(1)and Christabel Ngimbu v Charles Kakoma & ECZ(2). In doing so, we clearly contemplated that the result of the two motions in question would, as test actions, in effect determine the three stayed motions. We stated that the two heard motions and the three stayed motions, have some common questions of law and facts. Firstly, all the five motions were made under Article 72 (1) (a)of the Constitutionand Section93 (1)of the Electoral Act, 2006. Secondly, all the five motions arise from Election Petitions which were decided against each of the 1st Respondent therein. Thirdly, they are all, inter alia, seeking to bar the Respondents in question, from recontesting by-elections in the Constituencies concerned. We ordered the stay of proceedings on the authorities of Order 4, Rule 9 (1)of the Rules of the Supreme Court1999and Atkin’s Court Forms, 2nd Edition, Volume 37 (1995 Issue), pages 196 and 211.
Today, we have dismissed, for lack of merit, the two motions that were heard on 17th December 2013. Since we regarded those two motions as test actions, we hereby similarly dismiss these three motions, for lack of merit. We order that each party bears its own costs, as these are Constitutional matters.
P667
M.S. MWANAMWAMBWA
ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE
H. CHIBOMBA G.S. PHIRI
SUPREME COURT JUDGE SUPREME COURT JUDGE
M.E. WANKI E.C. MUYOVWE
SUPREME COURT JUDGE SUPREME COURT JUDGE
M.LISIMBA R.M. C. KAOMA
ACTG SUPREME COURT JUDGE ACTG SUPREME COURT JUDGE