Fratelli Fasani Spa v Zambital (Z) Ltd & Another (S.C.Z. Judgment 20 of 1983) [1983] ZMSC 13 (17 November 1983)
The Zambian courts had jurisdiction because the contract was to be performed in Zambia, both parties submitted to the court's jurisdiction, and the pleadings indicated the defendant had assets in Zambia. Exchange control authority was presumed to exist for the transaction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1983] ZMSC 13
- Parties
- Appellant: Fratelli Fasani SPA; Respondent: Zambital (Z) Ltd
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- S.C.Z. Judgment 20 of 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Place of Performance, Enforcement of Foreign Contracts, Exchange Control Regulations
- 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
Fratelli Fasani SPA
Appellant
Zambital (Z) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Zambian courts had jurisdiction over a contract performed in Zambia between a Zambian importer and an Italian exporter
- 2 Whether the absence of defendant's assets in Zambia precluded enforcement of judgment
- 3 Whether awarding the balance of the purchase price to the Italian company contravened exchange control regulations
Ratio Decidendi
The Zambian courts had jurisdiction because the contract was to be performed in Zambia, both parties submitted to the court's jurisdiction, and the pleadings indicated the defendant had assets in Zambia. Exchange control authority was presumed to exist for the transaction.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- High Court decision set aside
- Costs awarded to the appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FRATELLI FASANI SPA v ZAMBITAL (Z) LTD AND ANOR (1983) Z. R. 129 (S. C.) SUPREME NGULUBE, D. C. J., GARDNER AND MUWO, JJ. S. 18TH (S. C. Z. APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1983 NOVEMBER JUDGMENT NO. COURT ,1983 OF 1983) Flynote Contract - Performance - Place - Jurisdiction. Courts- Jurisdiction - Contract - Place of performance - Need to ascertain. Headnote In a disagreement involving a contract between a Zambian Importer and an Italian exporter, the trial court found that the performance of the contract was carried out in Italy and out of the jurisdiction courts. of Zambian the Ruling: The performance of the contract, in the circumstances had to be carried out in Zambia, and the matter. Zambian jurisdiction courts over had the S. M. Malama, Jacques and Partners. For the appellant: For the respondents: M. Lwatula, Ellis and Co., instructed by A. J. Mkandawire and Co. ___________________________________ Judgment NGULUBE, D. C. J.: delivered ruling the of the court. This case came before a High Court judge who ruled that, because one of the parties to the contract was out of the jurisdiction, the performance of the contract must have been carried out in Italy. In fact the performance of the contract had to be carried out in Zambia. In any event, both parties to this action submitted to the jurisdiction of the Zambian courts. The learned trial judge further argued that, because there were no assets of the defendant in Zambia, no judgment could be enforced. pleadings, The p130 however, indicate that the defendant had assets in this country. The learned trial judge also argued that, to award the balance of the purchase price in this case to the Italian company would be contrary to exchange control regulations. The contract was between a Zambian importer and an Italian exporter and in the circumstances, the normal assumption to make is that there must have been exchange control authority in the first place. We are satisfied that the transaction in this case falls within the contemplation of Order 10 Rule 15 of the High Court Rules and that therefore, the Zambian courts have jurisdiction. The decision of the High Court is hereby set aside. The appeal is appellant. allowed costs with the to Appeal allowed __________________________________