Bit by Bit Steel Fabrication and Engineering Ltd v Mimbulu and Ors (Appeal 24 of 2014) [2016] ZMSC 259 (12 July 2016)

R1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA APPEAL NO. 24/2014 (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN BIT BY BIT STEEL FABRICATION AND ENGINEERING LTD APPELLANT AND KALUNGA MIMBULU AND 2 OTHERS RESPONDENTS Coram: Mambilima, CJ., Kabuka and Chinyama, JJS. On 12th July, 2016. For the Applicant For the Respondents : Absent : In person RULING Chinyama, JS delivered the ruling of the court. Legislation referred to: 1. Industrial and Labour Relations Act, Chapter 269, Laws of Zambia. Case referred to: 1. Arizone Global Merchants Limited V. Bank of Zambia, Appeal No. 14 of 2014 R2 Works referred to: 1. Rules of the Supreme Court (1999) Edition (White Book) On 12th July, 2016 we dismissed this appeal on the grounds of non-compliance with the rules of court by the appellant. Although we gave our reasons for the decision ex tempore, we deemed it appropriate to communicate our decision in a written ruling. The appeal was against the decision of the Industrial Relations Court at Lusaka which awarded payment by the appellant to the respondents of the following reliefs: balances on the salaries for the month of January, 2013; February, 2013 salaries; leave days and separation benefits at two months’ basic salary for every completed year of service to be assessed by the Registrar. The respondents were also awarded costs. On 10th December, 2013, the appellant, a limited liability company filed a notice of appeal and a memorandum of appeal bearing endorsements showing that the appellant was acting in person. In the proceedings in the Industrial Relations Court the appellant never made an appearance so that the issue of representation never arose. Suffice that for purposes of the proceedings in the Industrial Relations Court, section 91 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act1 permits parties to appear in R3 person or be represented (a) by an officer of a representative body or (b) by a legal practitioner. There is no strict requirement for corporate bodies to be represented by a legal practitioner. The practice is that corporate bodies are represented by designated officers. Natural persons, of course, appear in person and both natural persons as well as bodies corporate or unincorporated may be represented by a legal practitioner. For purposes of the proceedings in the Supreme Court irrespective of whether they originate from the Industrial Relations Court, however, the position is different. We made it clear in the case of Arizone Global Merchants Limited V. Bank of Zambia1, Appeal No. 14/2014 that it is contrary to the practice in this court for corporate bodies to purport to act in person. Order 6 Rule 5 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court1 provides that a body corporate can sue only by a solicitor. In the case referred to above we said that the effect of the rule is that an entity such as the Appellant can only institute proceedings through counsel. The notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal being the originating process in the appeal can only be endorsed by counsel. It is notable that the appellant was not represented at the hearing of the appeal and a notice of non-attendance in that respect was not filed. Obviously this behavior was not without precedent as the appellant had never appeared in the court below. R4 On the basis of the appellant failing to comply with Order 6 Rule 5 (3) aforestated we dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondent. I. C. MAMBILIMA CHIEF JUSTICE J. K. KABUKA SUPREME COURT JUDGE ............... ........................... J. CHINYAMA SUPREME COURT JUDGE