Herbert Kabamba and Ors v Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd (Appeal 165 of 2000) [2006] ZMSC 8 (3 March 2006)
Rule 78 cannot be used to re-open and re-argue an appeal that has already been disposed of; it is limited to correcting clerical errors and omissions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] ZMSC 8
- Parties
- Appellant: Hebert Kabamba and 317 Others; Respondent: Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 165 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Motion for Correction of Clerical Error
- Outcome
- motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Correction of Clerical Errors, Finality of Judgments, Supreme Court Rules
- 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
Hebert Kabamba and 317 Others
Appellant
Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Motion for Correction of Clerical Error
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules can be used to re-open a disposed appeal
- 2 Whether the motion constituted an attempt to re-argue the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 78 cannot be used to re-open and re-argue an appeal that has already been disposed of; it is limited to correcting clerical errors and omissions.
Court Disposition
motion dismissed
Orders
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA APPEAL NO. 165/2000 HOLDEN AT NDOLA (CIVIL JURISDICTION) BETWEEN: HEBERT KABAMBA AND 317 OTHERS AND ZAMBIA CONSOLIDATED COPPER MINES LTD CORAM: LEWANIKA, DCJ., MAMBIL1MA, SILOMBA, JJS On 7th June, 2005 and 3rd March, 2006 For the Appellant: For the Respondent: In person P. CHAMUTANGI, Senior Legal Officer, ZCCM RULING LEWANIKA, DCJ delivered the Ruling of the Court. When we heard this motion on 7th June 2005, we dismissed it and said we would give our reasons later and we now do so. This motion was brought pursuant to Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules for the correction of a clerical error, slip or omission. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the motion as well as the heads of argument filed by the Appellants left us in no doubt that the motion was an attempt to re- open and argue the appeal that we disposed of in our judgment delivered on 7th December, 2004. We have on numerous occasions advised litigants that Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules should not be used for a second bite at the cherry but is meant to correct clerical errors and omissions. It was for this reason that we dismissed the motion. Owing to the circumstances of the Appellants, we make no order as to costs. D. M. Lewanika DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE I. M. C. Mambilima SUPREME COURT JUDGE S. S. Silomba SUPREME COURT JUDGE 2