Al Shams Building Materials Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Anor (APPLICATION NO. 105/2025) [2025] ZMCA 149 (19 November 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 0 -~,~ I. I~~ ~ HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN PLICATION NO. 105/2025 AL SHAMS BUILDING MATER! APPLICANT AND BANK OF ZAMBIA ATTORNEY-GENERAL 1 ST RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT CORAM: SIAVWAPA JP CHISHIMBA AND PATEL JJA On 11 th and 19th November 2025 FOR THE 1st APPELLANT: MR. N. NCHITO SC WITH MISS SIMACHELA AND MR. HAMWELA ALL OF MESSRS NCHITO AND NCHITO AND MISS. KAINGU, IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FOR THE 2 ND APPELLANT: MRS. C. MULENGA, ACTING CHIEF STATE ADVOCATE AND MRS . M. KWALEYELA FOR THE 1sT RESPONDENT: MR. M. DESAI, MR. L. MWAMBA AND MR. CHUNGU ALL OF MESSRS MWAMBA AND DESAI ADVOCATES FOR THE 2 ND RESPONDENT: IN PERSON RULING SIAVWAPA JP delivered the Ruling of the Court 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This is an application by Notice of Motion filed by the 1st Respondent in Appeal No. 286/2022 for an order to stay proceedings pending hearing and determination of the renewed application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, by the Supreme Court. The application is made pursuant to Rule 51 of the Supreme Court Rules, chapter 25 of the Laws of Zambia, Order 59 Rule 10 (9) (b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England (1965), 1999 edition and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 This application is interlocutory within Appeal No 286 of 2022 as amended and filed on 10th June 2025. Before we could hear the appeal, the Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal was improperly before the Court because the Appellants had not complied with the condition set by the Court below to pay into Court 30% of the Judgment Debt. 2. 2 We heard the application and determined that the Court below had no jurisdiction to impose a condition precedent to the filing of the appeal when the Appellants did not require leave of the Court to lodge the appeal. We delivered a ruling dated 15th January 2024 by which we held that the condition set by the Court below was illegal and null and void ab initio. On that basis, we dismissed the application and held that the Appeal was properly before us. 2.3 Subsequent to our Ruling, the Respondents filed Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 13 (3) of the Court of Appeal Act No. 65 of 2016. They sought to rely on point of law of public importance and reasonable prospects of success. 2.4 After hearing the application, we formed the view that it was devoid of merit and dismissed it accordingly. R2 2.5 The Respondents were out of time to renew the application for leave to a ppeal befor e the Supreme Court. They therefore, applied for extension of time within which to file a r enewed a pplication for leave to appeal. A single Judge of the Supreme Court granted the application to renew the application for leave to a ppeal, which the Respondents filed accordingly. 2.6 However, before the single Judge of the Supreme Court could h ear the renewed a pplication for leave to a ppeal, the Appellants filed an application challengin g the propriety of the renewed a pplication. The Single Judge has since h eard the application by the Appellants and the Ruling is being awaited. 3 .0 OUR DECISION 3 .1 As things stand , there are two applications pending before the Suprem e Court relating to the appeal before us. The first one is the r en ewed application for leave to appeal which h as not been heard. The second one is th e Appellants' application challen ging the ren ewed applica tion for leave to appeal. As indicated earlier, this application h as been h eard and a Ruling is being awaited. 3.2 The question before us is; wh eth er there is a case for us to stay proceedings in the appeal before us pending the outcom e of the two applications pending before the Supreme Court. 3.3 In effect, the Respondents are before the Suprem e Court seekin g to have our Ruling of 15th January 2024, set aside for want of jurisdiction. We have looked at the r easons upon which the single Judge of th e Supreme Court granted the order extending time within which th e Respondents were to file the renewed application for leave to a ppeal. 3.4 In essen ce, th e single Judge of the Supreme Court reviewed our Ruling which is sought to be a ppealed against and formulated questions which R3 3.4 In essence, the single Judge of the Supreme Court reviewed our Ruling which is sought to be appealed against and formulated questions which she thought needed to be answered at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal. 3.5 Whether or not the single Judge of the Supreme Court ultimately grants leave to appeal against our Ruling, we take the view that orderliness and integrity in the judicial process are paramount. 3.6 We are therefore, inclined to allow the application to stay proceedings in the appeal before us pending the determination of the applications before the Supreme Court. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 We accordingly grant the application and order that proceedings in Appeal No. 286 of 2022, be and are hereby stayed. 4.2 Costs for this application will be for the Appellants for being brought at short notice. The same shall be taxed by the taxing officer in default of agreement. M. J. SIAVWAPA JUDGE PRESIDENT F. M. CHISHIMBA COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE A. N. PATEL SC COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE R4