Emmanuel Kayuni (Suing as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Theresa Bwalya Kayuni) and Anor v The Attorney General and Ors (2025/CCZ/001) [2025] ZMCC 23 (27 November 2025)

, IN THE MATTER OF: HE CONSTITUTION . 2 OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF: ORDER IV OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES 2016 STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 37 OF 2016 IN THE MAiTER OF: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 187 (1) (2) AND 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA ACT NO. 2 OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS OF ARTICLES 189 AND 266 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) ACT NO. 2 OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF: PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT DIVISION CIRCULAR NO. B9 OF 2021 AND 821 OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT CHAPTER 260 BETWEEN: EMMANUEL MWANGE KAYUNI (Suing as 1st PETITIONER Administrator of the Estate of the Late Theresa Bwalya Kayuni) REGINA NGANDWE (Suing as Co-Administrator of the 2ND PETITIONER Estate of the Late Theresa Bwalya Kayuni) AND Jl THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVIES SIMFUKWE CHOLA COLLIBLE GRA CE KANDEKE SINKOLONGO THE PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS FUND BOARD 1sr RESPONDENT 2ND RESPONDENT 3RD RESPONDENT 4 TH RESPONDENT 5fH RESPONDENT CORAM: CHISUNKA, MULONGOTI, MWANDENGA, KAWIMBE AND MULIFE, JJC ON 7TH NOVEMBER, 2025 AND 27TH NOVEMBER, 2025. For the Petitioners: Mr. John Lubumbe and Mrs. Leah Kashita of Messrs J & K Partners Legal Practitioners. For the 1st - 4th Respondent: Mr. C. Mulonda - Deputy Chief State Advocate, Ms. N. K. Chango - Principal State Advocate, Ms. N. Mulalelo - Senior State Advocate - Attorney General's Chambers For the 5th Respondent: Mr. E. Sakala and Ms. M. Simumba - In House Counsel JUDGMENT Mulife, JC, delivered the judgment of the Court. Cases referred to: 1. Lubunda Ngala and Another v Anti- Corruption Commission, 2017/CC/R002 2. Gift Moyo vs Attorney General, 2021/CCZ/006 3. Owen Maya pi and 4 Others v The Attorney General, 2019/CCZ/003 4. Anderson Mwale, Buchisa Mwalongo and Kola Odubote v Zambia Open University, 2021/CCZ/001 5. Chrispine Muchindu v The Attorney General 2021/CCZ/0034 6. Dr. Oscar Mwiinde v the Attorney General and National Pension Scheme Authority, 2021/CCZ/0048 7. Professor Luke Evuta Mumba and Dr. Tamala Tonga Kambikambi v the University of Zambia , 2022/CCZ/006 8. Zambia Railways v Pauline S. Mundia and Another, SCZ Appeal No. 189 of 9. Bric Back Limited TIA Gamamwe Ranches v Neil Kirkpatrick, 2020/CCZ/A002 Ji 10. TC Promotions Limited and 2 others v Lusaka City Council, 2025/CCZ/006 Legislation referred to: Constitution of Zambia as amended by the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016 Public Service Pensions Act No. 35 of 1996, Chapter 260 of the Laws of Zambia Constitutional Court Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 37 of 2016 INTRODUCTION [1] This judgment relates to the petition of Emmanuel Mwange Kayuni and Regina Ngandwe (the Petitioners), in their capacity as Co administrators of the estate of Theresa Bwalya Kayuni (the deceased), who died intestate on 2P1 March, 2018. [2] The petition was filed into Court on 6th January, 2025, pursuant to Article 128 of the Constitution of Zambia as amended by the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016 (the Constitution) and Order IV of the Constitutional Court Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 37 of 2016 (the CCR). It is accompanied by an affidavit verifying facts jointly sworn by the Petitioners. It is further supported by skeleton arguments, affidavit in reply and oral submissions. [3] The 1st Respondent has been sued pursuant to section 12 of the State Proceedings Act, Chapter 71 of the Laws of Zambia, in his capacity as Chief Legal Advisor of the Government of the Republic of Zambia. J3 J [4) The 2nd - 4th Respondents, are officers holding diverse positions in the Ministry of Education of the Government of the Republic of Zambia. They have been sued on allegations that they failed to facilitate the payment of the pension benefits for the deceased, which is the fulcrum of the present petition. [5] The 5th Respondent has been sued in its capacity as the entity responsible for paying pension benefits to its members. THE PETITIONERS' CASE [6] The deceased was employed as an untrained class teacher in the Ministry of Education from January, 1993 to December, 1994. [7] The deceased was, on 26th September, 1999, upgraded to the position of primary school teacher. On 1st September, 2000, she was confirmed on permanent and pensionable basis. [8] The Petitioners allege that the deceased was later upgraded to the position of secondary school teacher in the year 2018, where upon she was posted to Mabumba Secondary School. [9] That at the time of her demise, the deceased had been a member of the Public Service Pension Fund (PSPF) on pension number 1930033342, for more than twenty years i.e., from 1993 up to the date of her demise on 21 st March, 2018. J4 [1 0] That in 2016, the Government of the Republic of Zambia enacted the Constitution wherein Article 187 provided that an employee has a right to a pension benefit. Further, that Article 189 of the Constitution provides that an employee whose pension benefits have not been paid, must be retained on the payroll pending payment of the pension benefit. [11] The Petitioners further allege that after her demise through to November 2022, the deceased was retained on payroll, in line with Article 189 of the Constitution. [12] The Petitioners allege that, in breach of the Constitution, the deceased, whilst being retained on the payroll, was only paid basic salaries without allowances. That under the circumstances, the unpaid allowances due to the deceased amount to ZMW 64, 461 . 73. [1 3] It is the Petitioners' further allegation that the deceased was, at the instance of the 2nd - 4th Respondents, removed from the payroll in November, 2022 before her pension benefits were paid. [1 4] The Petitioners went on to allege that the 2nd - 4th Respondents refused to clear and send the deceased's pension file to the 5th Respondent for payment of the pension benefits. That this was because the deceased's terminal benefits had been offset by the monthly salaries totaling ZMW 387,827.99 wh ich her estate was paid JS ~-------lilll!llli-------------------------- .. ,,,,. during the period she was retained on the payroll. The 2nd - 4th Respondents further contended that the deceased had in fact been overpaid by an amount of ZMW 209, 124.24 which she should accordingly refund . [15) As a result of the foregoing, the Petitioners are alleging contravention of Articles 187, 188, 189 and 266 of the Constitution as well as Section 43( 1) of the Public Service Pensions Act No. 35 of 1996, Chapter 260 of the Laws of Zambia (Public Service Pensions Act), by the Respondents. [1 6] Consequently, the Petitioners are seeking the following orders: i. That the late Theresa Kayuni Bwalya, having worked for more than 10 years was entitled to pension benefits as provided for under Article 187 and 189 of the Constitution and the Public Service Pensions Act. ii. A declaratory order that the failure by the Respondents to pay the late Theresa Bwalya Kayuni her pension benefits from 21 st March, 2018 to date violated Article 187 and 189 of the Constitution. iii. An order that the removal of the petitioner from the payroll without being paid her pension benefits violated Article 189(2) of the Constitution. iv. An order that by paying the petitioner only basic pay without allowances from April 2018 to November 2022 violated Article 189 of the Constitution and the law. v. A declaration that Circular No. B 21 of 2018 violated the Constitution in as far as it omitted the payments of other allowances of the deceased. vi. A declaratory order that the withholding of pension benefits from the deceased is unconstitutional. vii. An order that the purported deduction of paid salaries from the pension of the petitioner is unconstitutional. J6 ,..,. viii. An order directing the respondent to promptly and regularly pay the pension benefits to the petitioner. ix. A declaratory order that the conduct of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents of holding on to the pension files of the petitioner and failure to pay the pension benefits of the petitioner is unconstitutional. x. An order that the alleged deduction of pension benefits of the petitioner violates Article 187(2) of the Constitution. xi. An order that in terms of Article 266 of the Constitution, a leave terminal benefit is compensation and therefore is part of pension benefits and is thus not subject to tax in terms of Article 188 (2) of the Constitution. xii. xiii. A declaration that the Respondents' decision to stop paying the basic salary to the Petitioner is unconstitutional. An order directing the Respondents to pay the pension benefit of the petitioner promptly without delay with interest. xiv. Costs. xv. That the petitioner be retained on payroll until disposal of the matter. xvi. An order that the petitioner be paid her basic pay from 2018 to date. xvii. Any relief the Court may consider appropriate. [1 7] In their skeleton arguments filed into Court on 6th June, 2025, the Petitioners went on to recite the provisions of Articles 187, 188 (2), 189 and 266 of the Constitution. In a nutshell, that Article 187 makes provision for the right of an employee, public officer and constitutional office holder, to a pension benefit. [18] ThatArticle 188 (2) of the Constitution provides that a pension benefit shall be exempt from tax and the Petitioners argued that the deceased was entitled to untaxed leave terminal benefits. That however, in breach of this provision, the deceased's accrued leave J7 benefits amounting to ZMW 64, 461 .73 which was subjected to a tax of ZMW 23,502.62. [19] That Article 189 of the Constitution requires prompt payment of a pension benefit, and the retention on the payroll, of a beneficiary pending payment of his or her pension benefit. The petitioners argued that by failing to pay the pension benefits in issue over six years after they were due, the Respondents contravened Article 189 of the Constitution. In support of this proposition, the Petitioners placed reliance on the cases of Lubunda Ngala and Another v Anti- Corruption Commission 1 and Gift Moyo vs Attorney General2, where we defined the terms "promptly" and "regularly" as used in Article 189 of the Constitution, to mean 'without delay' and "when they fall due", respectively. [20] The Petitioners alleged further breach of Article 189(2) of the Constitution by the Respondents on grounds that they removed the deceased from the payroll prior to payment of her pension benefit. It is the Petitioners' further averment that even at the time the Respondents retained the deceased on the payroll, the Respondents, in reliance on Circular 821 of 2018, only paid the deceased a basic salary without allowances. That this act contravened Article 189(2) of the Constitution as explained in the J8 ,. , . case of Owen Mayapi and 4 Others v The Attorney General3, that a beneficiary who is retained on the payroll pending payment of his or her pension benefit should be paid what they were getting through the payroll at the time of their retirement. That only her last salary included allowances which she was accordingly entitled to be paid alongside the basic salary during the period she was retained on the payroll. [21] Article 266 of the Constitution, was cited with specific reference to the definition of the term 'pension benefit', wh ich was further underscored by reference to the Lubunda Ngala1 case. [22] The Petitioners argued that in determining what amounts to a pension benefit, regard must be had to the relevant constitutional provisions (Articles 187 and 189 of the Constitution) and the relevant Act of Parliament, which in the present case is the Public Service Pensions Act. Here, they placed reliance on the cases of Anderson Mwale, Buchisa Mwalongo and Kola Odubote v Zambia Open University' and Chrispine Muchindu v The Attorney General5, where we held that a pension benefit should be provided for by an Act of Parliament. [23] With regards to the Public Service Pensions Act, the Petitioners referred us to the preamble and Section 2 of the Act which was cited J9 . ,. with reference to the definitions of the terms 11officer", "pension", "pensionable emoluments", "pensionable service, "public service", and "qualifying service". [24] We were further referred to sections 30, 31 and 32 of the Public Service Pensions Act which in a nutshell identifies persons who are required to contribute to the PSPF as well as the rate and method of payment of contributions. [25] The Petitioners submitted that for one to be entitled to a pension benefit, they must be an employee, an officer in the Public Service; be confirmed on their appointment; and should have made contributions to the PSPF for a period of at least ten years. The Petitioners submitted that the deceased qualifies for full pension benefits in accordance with Article 187 of the Constitution, because she had been an employee in the public service for over 20 years and had been contributing to the PSPF for more than 10 years. [26] Relevant to this case, the Petitioners cited our decision in the case of Lubunda Ngala1 and sections 34(1 ), 44 and 47 of the Public Service Pensions Act, to posit that the deceased's entitlement to full pension benefits shou ld be deemed to have been triggered by her demise, and that the quantum of her pension benefits, should be JlO ., r calculated using the formulae provided for in sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Public Service Pensions Act. [27) In the Lubunda Ngala1 case we held that, pension benefits are triggered by age or other circumstances. The Petitioners contend that the "other circumstances" referred to in the Lubunda Ngala1 case, include death, as in the case of the deceased in this matter. [28] The Petitioners cited Article 18 (1) of the Constitution to suggest that the Article confers upon the deceased, a right to a pension benefit. We outrightly must state that Article 18(1) of the Constitution was cited out of context because contrary to the Petitioners' suggestion, the provision provides for due process rights for a person who is charged with a criminal offence, which rights, are not in contention in this matter. [29] The Petitioners' replies to the Respondents' answers and affidavits in opposition are a repetition of the petition and affidavit in support recited above save to add that the 2nd - 4th Respondents only transmitted the deceased's pension file to the PSPF and the Ministry of Education on 10th January, 2025. [30] The Petitioners did not file skeleton arguments in reply. Jll THE 15 T. 4TH RESPONDENTS' ANSWER (31] The pt - 4th Respondents are opposed to the Petition. In doing so, they jointly filed an Answer on 9th June, 2025 which was amended with leave of Court on 13th August, 2025. The Answer was filed by the 1st Respondent in his capacity as legal representative of the 2nd - 4th Respondents, pursuant to section 12 of the State Proceedings Act, Chapter 71 of the Laws of Zambia. It is accompanied by skeleton arguments and an affidavit in opposition to affidavit verifying Petition. The affidavit in opposition is deposed to by the 2nd Respondent. (32] In a nutshell, the 1st - 4th Respondents averred that the deceased died on 22nd March, 2018 and not 21 st March, 2018 as alleged by the Petitioners. They admit that, at the time of her demise, the deceased was a confirmed Teacher in the Ministry of Education and had been a member of the PSPF. They also admit that after her demise, the deceased had been retained on the Government payroll pending payment of her terminal benefits. Further, that during the time she was maintained on the payroll, the deceased was paid basic salaries without allowances. They further admitted that the deceased was removed from the Government payroll sometime in 2022. (33] However, contrary to the Petitioners' allegations, the 1st - 4th Respondents dispute having contravened the Constitution. In J12 I I I' l I I support of their position, they averred that the deceased served the Ministry of Education for 17 years and 6 months and not more than 20 years as alleged by the Petitioners. Further, that based on her period of service of 17 years and 6 months, the deceased did not qualify for pension benefits as alleged by the Petitioners. Rather, she only qualified to be paid her contributions to the PSPF. That the deceased is additionally entitled to be paid, special death gratuity, leave travel benefits and repatriation allowance, all totaling ZMW 168, 057.46. [34] It is the 1st - 4th Respondents' position that the deceased's terminal benefits listed above, have been offset and in fact exceeded by the basic salaries which were paid to her during the period she was retained on the Government payroll after her demise. That therefore, the 1st - 4th Respondents do not owe the deceased any terminal benefits. To the contrary, it is the deceased who owes the 1st - 4th Respondents the excess amount paid to her through the basic salaries. In this regard , the 1st - 4th Respondent are claiming a refund of ZMW 209, 124.24 from the deceased. [35] Accordingly, the 1st - 4th Respondents prayed for the following relief: i. That the petition be dismissed; J13 ii. That the Petitioners claim for the deceased's pension benefits from the PSPF, if she is owed any money; and iii. That the estate of the deceased settles the overdrawn salaries with the Public Service Management Division. [36] In their list of authorities and skeleton arguments filed into Court on 13th August, 2025, the 1st - 4th Respondents submitted that Article 187 of the Constitution establishes the right of an employee to a pension benefit, and that apart from relevant constitutional provisions, a pension benefit is provided for under relevant Acts of Parliament which in this case is the Public Service Pensions Act. In support of this proposition, the 1st - 4th Respondents cited the following cases: Anderson Mwale, Buchisa Mwalongo and Kola Odubote v Zambia Open University4 , Dr. Oscar Mwiinde v the Attorney General and National Pension Scheme Authority6 , and Professor Luke Evuta Mumba and Dr. Tamala Tonga Kambikambi v the University of Zambia7 • [37] The 1st - 4th Respondents however, denied contravening Article 187 of the Constitution. That this is so because having served for a period of 17 years and 6 months, the deceased had not accrued the right to full pension benefits within the meaning of Article 187 of the Constitution. That according to her period of service, the deceased J14 xaa• -· . --= I I I I .. was entitled to a special gratuity, repatriation and leave pay, all totaling ZMW 168, 057.46. Further, that the deceased was paid the total amount due to her, through the basic salaries whilst she was retained on the payroll. That the payments exceeded her entitlement by an amount of ZMW209, 124.24, which should be refunded. [38] They relied on the same cases as the petitioners on what amounts to a pension benefit within the meaning of Article 266 of the Constitution . That applied to the present Petition, the Lubunda Ngala case implies that the Petitioners' claim for payment of accrued leave pay, double class allowance and gratuity are not tenable because the said emoluments are not part of a pension benefit. [39] The 1 st th - 4 Respondents denied having breached Article 189 (2) of the Constitution on the ground that in line with that Article, the deceased was retained on the payroll after her demise, from April 2018 to November 2022, during which period, she was being paid basic salaries. That the deceased was only removed from the payroll upon the Respondents realizing that she had been overpaid. [40] The 1" - 4~ Respondents submitted that absent the alleged constitutional breaches, the Petitioners have not engaged this Court's jurisdiction in accordance with Article 128(3) of the JlS Constitution which , among others, empowers any person alleging breach of the Constitution, to petition this Court for redress. [41] That accordingly, the Petitioners have not proved their claims on a balance of probabilities as expected of claimants in civil cases. For this requirement, the 1st - 4th Respondents referred us to the learned authors of Phipson on Evidence, 17th Edition at page 151 , and the case of Zambia Railways v Pauline S. Mundia and Another8. [42] In conclusion, the 1st - 4th Respondents urged us to dismiss the Petition with costs. THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE [43] The 5th Respondent is similarly opposed to the Petition and filed an answer accompanied by an affidavit and skeleton arguments in support, on 15th May, 2025. The affidavit in support of the answer is deposed to by Joseph Banda, the Manager of Pensions Administration in the employ of the 5th Respondent. [44] In a nutshell the 5th Respondent admits that it is responsible for the payment of pension benefits to its members and that the deceased was its member. [45] However, the 5th Respondent denies having contravened the deceased's pension rights as enshrined in the Constitution. That this J16 is because the deceased's file was not presented to it by her former employers for processing the payment of her pension benefits as required by law. [46] Based on the foregoing, it is the 5th Respondent's position that the Petitioners have not established a cause of action against it. Consequently, the 5th Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the Petition against it. [4 7] The 5th Respondent filed its list of authorities and skeleton arguments into Court on 15th May, 2025, which in essence are a replica of its answer to the petition. For this reason , they shall not be reproduced. THE HEARING [48] At the hearing on 7th November, 2025, Mr. Lubumbe, counsel for the Petitioners, informed the Court that the Petitioners had abandoned their summons filed into Court on 31 st October, 2025, for an order to cross-examine deponents of the 2nd and 5th Respondents' affidavits in opposition to the affidavit verifying petition. The 1st Petitioner was called to the witness stand to adduce evidence on behalf of the Petitioners. The 1st Petitioner relied on his witness statement on record for his evidence-in-chief. The witness statement is similar to the petition and affidavit in support recited above save to note that it indicates that the duration of the deceased's employment and J17 membership to the PSPF is 19 years contrary to what is stated in the petition. [49] Under cross-examination by Ms. Chongo, counsel for the 1st - 4th Respondents, the 1st Petitioner stated that the deceased died on 21 st March, 2018 while holding the position of head of department at a Government school in Mansa district. That the deceased was retained on the Government payroll until November, 2022, during which she was only paid basic salaries without allowances. [50] The 1st Petitioner went on to testify that apart from the basic salaries, the deceased has not been paid any other money by the Respondents. [51] Under cross-examination by Mr. Sakala, counsel for the 5th Respondent, the 1st Petitioner stated that he was instrumental in pushing for the remittance of the deceased's employment file to the Ministry of Education. Further, that by mid-June, 2025, the deceased's pension file had not been submitted to the 5th Respondent. [52] This marked the close of the Petitioners' case. [53] The Respondents did not call any witness. J18 [54] In terms of oral submissions, Mr. C. Mulonda, counsel for the 1st - 4th Respondents, argued that the petition does not raise any constitutional issue to engage this Court's jurisdiction. That the relief being sought by the Petitioners fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court because they are grounded in labour law. That consequently and in line with the case of Bric Back Limited T/A Gamamwe Ranches v Neil Kirkpatrick9 , in which this Court held that its jurisdiction is confined to a determination of constitutional questions, the petition should be dismissed. [55] Further, on behalf of the 1st - 4th Respondents, Ms. Chongo; disputed the alleged constitutional breaches on grounds that the Petitioner was in fact overpaid what is due to her. [56] On behalf of the 5th Respondent, Mr. Sakala, informed the Court that he would place reliance on the 5th Respondent's answer to the petition, affidavit in support of the answer and the list of authorities and skeleton arguments. [57] Mr. Sakala reiterated the 5th Respondent's prayer for a dismissal of the petition. [58] In reply, Mr. Lubumbe, submitted that the petition has raised constitutional issues because issues relating to pension benefits are J19 governed by the Constitution. Accordingly, the Petitioners' allegation that the deceased's pension benefits have not been paid by the Respondents for a period of seven years and that the fact that the 1st - 4th Respondents removed the deceased from the Government payroll before paying her the pension benefits, touch on Articles 187 and 189 of the Constitution and can only be entertained by this Court and not the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court. [59] Mr. Lubumbe urged us to uphold the petition. CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION [60] We have carefully considered the Petitioners' petition, affidavit in support, replies and skeleton arguments. We have also considered the Respondents' responses to the petition, list of authorities and skeleton arguments as well as the parties' submissions. [61] We begin by stating our jurisdiction as bestowed by Article 1(5) read with Article 128 of the Constitution. Relevant portions of both provisions are hereunder reproduced: 1(5) A matter relating to this Constitution shall be heard by the Constitutional Court. 128. (1) Subject to Article 28, the Constitutional Court has original and final jurisdiction to hear- (a) a matter relating to the interpretation of this Constitution; (b) a matter relating to a violation or contravention of this Constitution; J20 (2) Subject to Article 28(2), where a question relating to this Constitution arises In a court, the person presiding in that court shall refer the question to the Constitutional Court (3). Subject to Article 28, a person who alleges that (a) an Act of Parliament or statutory instrument; (b) an action, measure or decision taken under law; or (c) an act, omission, measure or decision by a person or an authority; contravenes Constitutional Court for redress. this Constitution, may petition the [62] It is clear that Articles 1 (5) and 128 of the Constitution confine our jurisdiction to a determination of constitutional questions. We reaffirmed this position in the case of Bric Back Limited T/A Gamamwe Ranches v Neil Kirkpatrick9 where we held that 'the Constitutional Court of Zambia is a specialized Court set up to resolve only constitutional questions.' [63] In the case of TC Promotions Limited and 2 others v Lusaka City Council 10 , we said the following about a Constitutional question: In terms of Article 128 (1) of the Constitution, it can be said that a constitutional question ... arises - (i} when the issue in dispute involves the interpretation of the Constitution; (ii} where a dispute relates to the violation or contravention of the Constitution .. . (iv} where a question arises as to whether or not a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. J21 ~ -----=-=i..,;=IIQiilljlilR'liil!illiiiilii~-----=------------- - -- - - - - - - - - , .. ,. [64] Article 128(3) of the Constitution empowers a person alleging contravention of the Constitution to petition this Court for redress. It states as follows: Subject to Article 28, a person who alleges that - (a) An Act of Parliament or Statutory instrument; (b) An action, measure or decision taken under any law; (c) An act, omission, measure or decision by a person or an authority; contravenes this Constitution, may petition the Constitutional Court for redress. (65) lt is principally on the basis of Article 128(3) of the Constitution that the Petitioners have instituted the present petition. Herein, they are essentially alleging that the Respondents have contravened Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the Constitution relating to the deceased's pension benefits. (66] It is common cause that the deceased was an employee of the Teaching Service Commission and member of the PSPF. That she was retained on the Government payroll after her demise until November 2022, during which period, she was paid basic s~laries without allowances. [67] In our discernment, the dispute which the parties are inviting us to consider, relates not to the interpretation or contravention of Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the Constitution. Rather, it turns on the quantum and nature of the deceased's terminal benefits, which dispute, J22 •J , ,. stems from the parties' opposing arguments about the deceased's duration of employment in the Ministry of Education and her membership in the PSPF. [68] The Petitioners claim that the deceased had been an employee of the Ministry of Education and a member of the PSPF for over twenty years. That this period qualified the deceased to full pension benefits1 which pension benefits, have been withheld by the Respondents despite the deceased having been removed from the payroll. [69] To the contrary, the 1st - 4th Respondents contend that the deceased's duration of employment or membership in the afore-stated institutions, is seventeen years and six months. That this period did not qualify her to full pension benefits but only to statutory payments namely a special gratuity, repatriation and leave pay, all totaling ZMW 168, 057.46. Further, that the said sum of ZMW 168, 057.46, has been offset and even exceeded by the basic salaries the deceased was paid during the period she was retained on the pay roll. [70] We find that the issues outlined above squarely situate the dispute between the parties in a statute (the Public Service Pensions Act) and Government circulars. In further support of this finding, is the 1st J23 . . .. Petitioner's witness statement and the 1st - 4th Respondents' response to the affidavit in support of the petition which expressly positions the parties' respective cases in the Public Service Pensions Act. [71] The foregoing aspect renders the heart of the matter a labour or employee-employer dispute. In light of Articles 1 (5) and 128(1 )(a) and (b) of the Constitution which confine our jurisdiction to matters that relate to the Constitution, this ousts our jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The requisite jurisdiction lies with the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court. [72] We shall not pronounce ourselves on the 1st -4th Respondents' claim for a refund of the money which they allege to have overpaid the deceased's estate. This is because the claim is improperly before us. [73] In conclusion, we wish to express our concern with repeated petitions in this Court premised on Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the Constitution. We are concerned because we have already settled the jurisprudence surrounding these provisions in numerous cases. Under the circumstances, claimants whose matters stem from the stated provisions, can approach the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court for enforcement. The mere fact that the relief being sought is provided for under the Constitution does not, without more, J24 . . I I t I .. oust the Industrial Relations Court's jurisdiction. In this regard , we wish to reiterate our holding in the case of Bric Back Limited T/A Gamamwe Ranches v Neil Kirkpatrick9 that: We hold the view that even though a relief sought is provided for under the Constitution, it does not in any way oust the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court unless what is being sought is the interpretation of the constitutional provision. [74] We must also clarify that where a dispute, such as the present matter, turns on computation, qualification, or processing of pension benefits, it lies with the Industrial Relations Court. If a constitutional question arises in that court, it should then be referred to this Court in line with Article 128(2) of the Constitution. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS [75] The petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. [76] Parties shall bear their respective costs. J25