Afrizone Global Merchants Limited v Bank of Zambia (Appeal 14 of 2014) [2016] ZMSC 181 (7 June 2016)
The appeal is incompetent because the originating process and memorandum of appeal were endorsed by the appellant company itself, contrary to the requirement that a body corporate must act through counsel.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZMSC 181
- Parties
- Appellant: Afrizone Global Merchants Limited; Respondent: Bank of Zambia
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 14 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Corporate Litigation, Right of Audience, Representation by Counsel
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Afrizone Global Merchants Limited
Appellant
Bank of Zambia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a body corporate can institute proceedings without a solicitor
- 2 Whether the appeal is competent given the manner of its commencement
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is incompetent because the originating process and memorandum of appeal were endorsed by the appellant company itself, contrary to the requirement that a body corporate must act through counsel.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed as incompetent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA APPEAL NO.14/2014 Rl HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: AFRIZONE GLOBAL MERCHANTS LIMITIED APPELLANT AND BANK OF ZAMBIA RESPONDENT Corum Hamaundu, Kaoma, and Mutuna, JJS. on 7th June 2016 For the Appellant N/A For the Respondent Dr. L. Kalinde, General Legal Counsel, Mr. C. I\Iweemba, Legal Officer Zambia, Respondent - Bank of and RULING Mutuna, JS delivered the Ruling of the court This is an appeal against the decision of the Learned High Court Judge sitting at Lusaka, m which he discharged the order of injunction that was granted to the Appellant. The notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal in respect of this appeal, were both filed on 2nd August 2013. A perusal of these two documents reveals that they R2 were endorsed by the Appellant company. A perusal of the record of appeal reveals that the ex-parte summons for the interlocutory injunction in the court below, was also endorsed by the Appellant company. The view we take is that it contravenes the practice in this court and the court below. Order 6 rule 5 subrule 3 of the white book provides that a body corporate can sue only by a solicitor. The effect of this is that, an entity such as the Appellant, which is a body corporate, can only institute proceedings through counsel. The notice of appeal in this matter, which is the originating process, along with the memorandum of appeal, are both endorsed by the Appellant. This is contrary to the order we have referred to. As such, we find that this appeal is incompetent on the basis of the manner in which it was commenced. We accordingly dismiss it. Delivered at Ndola this 7th day of June 2016 ....... ~~~:~;;~li. SUPREME COURT JUDGE .' R3 n..", ;fi:i{':'Mlj' ..":A \ " SUPREME COURT JUDGE !