Chilosha v Attorney General (COMP 76 of 2016) [2016] ZMIC 19 (1 June 2016)
The court reluctantly granted the adjournment but issued a strong warning that any further lack of readiness by the respondents would result in the matter being adjourned for judgment.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZMIC 19
- Parties
- Complainant: Paul Chilosha; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- Industrial Relations Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- COMP 76 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Labour/industrial Complaint / Interlocutory Ruling on Adjournment
- Outcome
- Adjournment granted with warning
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Failure to Prosecute, Filing Out of Time
- 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
Paul Chilosha
Complainant
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour/industrial Complaint / Interlocutory Ruling on Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondents should be granted an adjournment despite repeated failures to comply with court directions
Ratio Decidendi
The court reluctantly granted the adjournment but issued a strong warning that any further lack of readiness by the respondents would result in the matter being adjourned for judgment.
Court Disposition
Adjournment granted with warning
Orders
- Matter adjourned to 16th June, 2016 at 09.00 hours for hearing; if respondents are not ready, the matter will be adjourned for judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT THE NDOLA DISTRICT REGISTRY INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION BETWEEN: PAUL CHILOSHA COMPLAINANT COMP/6/2016 AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENTS BEFORE: Hon. Judge E. L. Musona For the Complainant: Mr. R. Ngulube of Messrs Tembo Ngulube & Associates For the Respondents: Mr. S. Somboshi - State Advocate Date: rt June, 2016 RULING I have heard both parties. The record will show that the Respondents have never been serious with this case. I say so because initially they failed or declined or neglected to file an Answer to the Complaint within the prescribed 21 days. At that stage they should have been debarred from taking any further part in these proceedings as per rules of this court/division. I exercised lenience and allowed them to file their Answer Out of Time. . . R2 On 29th February, 2016 the Respondents did not attend court to prosecute their own application to file Answer Out of Time, and did not communicate to court the cause for their failure to attend court. Infact, Leave to file Answer Out of Time was granted to them in their absence and without them arguing their case but because I wanted the matter to be heard on merit. That shows lack of seriousness by the Respondents. Today counsel for the Respondents has come without their witness and wants an adjournment. I will allow the adjournment though reluctantly and sadly but with a strong warning that on the next sitting if the Respondents will not be ready I shall adjourn the matter for judgment because I have already given them enough time. 16th June, 2016 at 09.00 hours the whole day. Delivered at Ndola this the pt June, 2016. ~'--<!.c;;---->'.: Hon. E. L. Musana JUDGE