Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Courts Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Courts

Vol. 6, Issue 1 Table Of Contents May 2023

Vol. 6, Issue 1 Table Of Contents

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.


Editorial Board May 2023

Editorial Board

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.


Editorial Note, O'Brien Kaaba, Kafumu Kalyalya May 2023

Editorial Note, O'Brien Kaaba, Kafumu Kalyalya

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.


Mubita Mwananuka V Armaguard Security Caz Appeal No. 201/2021, O'Brien Kaaba May 2022

Mubita Mwananuka V Armaguard Security Caz Appeal No. 201/2021, O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

The Court of Appeal of Zambia, in the case of Mubita Mwananuka v Armaguard Security CAZ Appeal No. 201/2021, delivered a Ruling on 3rd August 2022 to divest the High Court General List of jurisdiction over employment matters. I argue that this decision is in clear violation of the Constitution and demonstrates bewildering disregard of precedents by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, which bind the Court of Appeal.


Guardall Security Group Limited V. Reinford Kabwe Caz Appeal No. 44/2019, Chanda Chungu Nov 2021

Guardall Security Group Limited V. Reinford Kabwe Caz Appeal No. 44/2019, Chanda Chungu

SAIPAR Case Review

The Court of Appeal dealt with a judgment of the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court which was passed more than one year after the matter was commenced. The Court of Appeal interpreted sections 85(3)(b) (ii) and 94 (1) of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act which prescribe that judgment should be within one (1) year of the filing of the complaint and sixty (60) days from close of trial.


Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited & Gregory Chifire (Alleged Contemnor) (Appeal No. 37/2017) [2018] Zmsc 11, Mwami Kabwabwa Nov 2020

Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited & Gregory Chifire (Alleged Contemnor) (Appeal No. 37/2017) [2018] Zmsc 11, Mwami Kabwabwa

SAIPAR Case Review

Adjudicators have a social responsibility. When the Judiciary/judges carry out their constitutional mandate of dispensing justice it is critical to bear in mind that judges carry a level of responsibility for the impact that their decisions have on society. For this reason, judges ought to be held responsible for every judgment they render either good or bad. Contempt is an exceedingly powerful instrument in the hands of the courts to tame the conduct and behaviour of lawyers and lay people who come into contact with judicial authority. Like any other power, the exercise of contempt power has to be checked. …


Mutembo Nchito V Attorney General 2016/Cc/0029 (27 October 2020), O'Brien Kaaba, Pamela Towela Sambo Nov 2020

Mutembo Nchito V Attorney General 2016/Cc/0029 (27 October 2020), O'Brien Kaaba, Pamela Towela Sambo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.


Daniel Mwale V Njolomole Mtonga And Another Appeal No.004 (2019), Dunia P. Zongwe May 2020

Daniel Mwale V Njolomole Mtonga And Another Appeal No.004 (2019), Dunia P. Zongwe

SAIPAR Case Review

This is a classic case of sour grapes. After failing to secure a favourable decision from the judges, the losing party accused them of prejudice. This happened in the Mwale v Mtonga matter, decided by the Supreme Court of Zambia in 2019. When his appeal failed, Daniel Mwale reacted by accusing that court and the entire judiciary of corruption.

The Mwale v Mtonga dispute brings up a number of themes: perceptions of corruption in the courts, unjustified public attacks against the judiciary, constraints on judges’ ability to respond to those attacks, the airing of corruption allegations in the wrong forum, …


Abedinego Kapeshi And Another V The People Scz Selected Judgment No. 35 Of 2017, Gift Sangende May 2020

Abedinego Kapeshi And Another V The People Scz Selected Judgment No. 35 Of 2017, Gift Sangende

SAIPAR Case Review

In 2017, the appellants, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Kabwe High Court appealed to the Supreme Court. They contended among other things, that the trial court erred in law to convict the appellants of murder. They further stated that the court erred in law to sentence the appellants to life imprisonment, as the sentence was excessive.

This case accorded the Supreme Court a great opportunity to discuss the belief in witchcraft and the offending conduct premised on that belief, as well as the multiple violations that are coupled with the same belief. Remarkably, the Court moved away from …