Jack Mwale v Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (2025/HPIR/545) [2025] ZMHC 121 (5 September 2025)

7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2022/ HPIR/545 AT THE PRINCJPAL REGISTRY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DMSION HOLDEN AT LUSAKA BETWEEN: JACKMWALE AND ZAMBIA NATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION ·---- RESPONDENT Coram: Chtgali Mikaltle, J thls St" day of September, 2025 For the Complainant: Ms. C. K. Puta - Messrs Robson Malipanga & Co For the Respondent: Ms. E. N. Mwale - Messrs Shamwana & Co & Mr. C. Kamfwa - In House Counsel Legislation referred to 1. The Employment Code Act No.3 of 2019 2. The Industrial Relations Court Rules, Chapter 269 Cases referred to: 1. Henry Million Mulenga v. Refined Oil products (1972) Ltd, Comp/40/ 1983 2. Rajagopalan Kothanda v. Jenala Ngwira Appeal No. 163 of 2015 3. Richard Muchaka Mwanarnbulo v. Dovovan Musoka Hilkakonko, Appeal 151 of 2020 4. Anderson K. Mazoka and Others v. Levy Mwanawasa (2005) Z. R 38 )1 5. Zambia Revenue Authority v. Hitech Trading Company Limited, SCZ Judgment No. 40 of 2000 6. Charles Mvula v. Zambia Breweries Pie, Appeal No. 134 of 2019 7. Kitwe City Council v. Nguni (2005) Z. R 57 8. Smart Phiri v. First Quantum Minerals and Operation Limited, 2012/HK/ 15 9. Undi Phiri v. Bank of Zambia, SCZ Judgment No. 21 of 2007 10. National Breweries Limited v. Philip Mwenya, SCZ Judgment (2002) Z. R 118 Other authority Halsbury's Laws of England Volume 36 (4th Edition} Introduction 1. After serving the respondent for more than ten years in various capacities, the complainant decided to retire and embark on a new path in his life. To his dismay, the respondent declined his application on the basis that it was not fiscally possible to settle his retirement dues. Despite this response, the complainant considered himself retired and stayed away from work. The respondent reacted by dismissing him and paying him what it considered due. 2. Discontented by the turn of events, the complainant took out this action via Notice of Complaint on 8 th July, 2022 claiming the following reliefs: (a)Full tenninal benefits; {b)Leave days; (c) Salary arrears; (d)In. house investment re.fund with interest; (e) Costs and any other benefits the Court may deem.fit. J2 Affidavit evidence 3. The complainant averred that he was employed by the respondent on 1st February, 2007 as a Producer on a permanent basis. Over the course of his employment, he rose to the position of Senior Producer. 4. On 11th November 2020, he submitted an application for early retirement, as evidenced by exhibit "JM 1 ". Unfortunately, his application was denied, as per exhibit '"JM2". He subsequently appealed to the Director General on 23rd November 2020, but the appeal was rejected on the ground that the Corporation had no money as per exhibit "JM4". Undeterred, the complainant lodged another appeal to the Director General on 1st December, 2020 ("JM5") challenging the earlier denial of his request for early retirement. Unfortunately, this appeal was similarly dismissed ("JM6"). 5. On 1st March 2021, the complainant was charged with absenteeism, a charge documented in exhibit "JM7". A disciplinary hearing was scheduled for 14th June, 2021 { as per exhibit "JM8") however, he contends that he was unable to attend the hearing as he had already been removed from the payroll at that time. On 24th June, 2021, the respondent summarily dismissed him from employment, as shown by exhibit "JM9". 6. On 10th August 2022, the respondent filed an affidavit in opposition sworn by Mr. Stali Kabechani, the respondent's Acting Director of Human Resource and Administration. He attested that the complainant was employed on 5 th February 20027 as an Announcer )3 and was subsequently promoted to the position of Senior Producer. During his tenure, the complainant was entitled to and benefited from the conditions of service applicable to unionised members of staff. These conditions were outlined in the collective agreement to which was attached the disciplinary and grievance procedure code covering the period from 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2022. The two documents were exhibited to the affidavit as "SK 1" and "SK2" respectively. 7. Mr. Kabechani confirmed that the complainant's request to proceed on early retirement was denied due to lack of funds. Furthermore, on 23rd February, 2021, the complainant's salary was frozen on the grounds that he had not reported for work for over two months. The letter freezing the salary is exhibited as "SK6". 8. The deponent also confirmed that the respondent charged the complainant with absenteeism exceeding ten days, pursuant to clause 3 of the Disciplinary and Grievance Code. The complainant replied (letter exhibited as "SK8") that he could not respond to the charge as he considered himself retired effective 11th December, 2020 and he continued to stay away from work on that basis. 9. The complainant neglected to appear for his hearing but was given a benefit of the doubt and a new date was communicated to him. He again opted not to show up. The respondent ultimately summarily dismissed him for absenteeism on 24th June 2021. 10. On 20th July 2021, the respondent computed the complainant's terminal benefits, amounting to K 262,086.95, as detailed in exhibit J4 "SK12". The complainant was subsequently informed via correspondence dated 29th September 2021 that the benefits would be disbursed in monthly instalments ofK 12,000.00 to be applied towards his outstanding loan and personal upkeep, as reflected in exhibit "SK13". 11. The deponent further acknowledged that on 4 th October 2021, the complainant, through his legal representative, formally claimed his benefits, as shown in exhibit "SK14". However, the respondent maintained that no financial obligation was owed to the complainant, citing his failure to exhaust all internal disciplinary procedures. Trial course 12. The complainant testified on his own behalf and called no other witness. The respondent similarly called one witness. 13. It was the complainant's testimony that he was initially engaged in February 2000 as a part-time Radio Presenter. He served in that capacity for seven years before being formally employed by the respondent on a full-time basis in 2007. In November 2020, having served the respondent for 13 years as a pensionable employee, he applied for early retirement. He asserted that he met the eligibility criteria outlined in his conditions of service, which required a minimum of 10 years of service. However, his application for early retirement was declined due to the respondent's lack of funds. 14. The complainant told court that in accordance with the grievance code, employees were prohibited from engaging in any business that directly JS competed with the employer as this constituted a conflict of interest which was a dismissible offence. Given the respondent's inability to fund his retirement package, he proposed to the Director General that he be permitted to proceed with early retirement and receive his benefits at a later date. This request was also denied. 15. He recounted that the Director General had expressly cautioned him that any intention to operate a radio station would attract punitive sanctions. That response made it clear to him that if he stayed on, he would end up being fired. 16. On 11th December 2020, thirty days after submitting his retirement application, he visited the Director of Human Resource, accompanied by a union representative, to notify him that his notice period had elapsed and that he was proceeding on retirement. Upon the union representative's inquiry, the Director confirmed that there were no procedural anomalies in the complainant's retirement application. The director further explained that the issue lay in the lack of funds as allowing the retirement would mean retaining the complainant on payroll. According to the complainant, he chose to proceed with retirement noting that he made this decision to avoid being dismissed ahd forfeiting his benefits. 17. He testified that after his departure on 11th December, he received salary payments for December, 2020 and January 2021 but did not receive a salary for February. There was no communication from the respondent explaining his removal from the payroll. He contended that pursuant to Article 189 of the Constitution, he was entitled to remain on the payroll until his full retirement benefits were paid. JG 18. The complainant's further evidence was that in February 2021, he received a charge letter from the respondent. In his response to the charge letter, the complainant asserted that as far as he was concerned he had retired from the respondent company. He subsequently received another letter summoning him to attend a scheduled disciplinary hearing and he wondered why considering that he was no longer on payroll. 19. In June 2021, he received a formal letter of dismissal followed by a breakdown of his terminal benefits which he refused to acknowledge as he did not agree with the respondent's computation. Ultimately, when he was paid his dues, the respondent deducted the amount he owed to Indo Zambia Bank, leaving him with a net sum of K 82,000.00 which he received in July 2022. 20. According to the complainant, he initiated these proceedings because he believed his dismissal was unfair. His continued stay, whilst engaged with his own production studio, would have resulted in his dismissal. He further argued that the dismissal was constructive asserting that termination was inevitable regardless of the direction he took. 21. Regarding his claims, he indicated that his terminal benefits ought to have been calculated by multiplying five months' salary by the total number of years he had served the respondent. He also requested payment of his salary and allowance for February 2021. 22. When cross examined by Ms. Mwale, the complainant reaffirmed his belief that the respondent intended to dismiss him due to his plans to )7 establish a competing production studio. He also conceded that he had stopped reporting for work on 11th December 2020 and further that the respondent did not authorise him to go. 23. The respondent's witness (RW) Mr. Sitali Kabechani, testified that the complainant was employed on a full-time basis as an Announcer on 5th February 2007. Over time, the complainant advanced through the ranks and attained the position of Senior Producer under Radio 4. 24. RW echoed his affidavit evidence on the complainant's unsuccessful retirement application, the freezing of his salary due to his failure to report for duty and his dismissal on 24th June 2021 for absenteeism. He added that the complainant did not lodge an appeal against the dismissal. 25. It was RW's testimony that on 201h July 2021, the respondent computed the complainant's terminal benefits which included accrued leave days, his pension contributions and service benefits calculated at two months' salary for each year served in accordance with the conditions of service. Upon receiving a demand for his benefits through his legal representatives, the respondent informed the complainant that his benefits would be disbursed after deducting the outstanding loan he owed to Indo Zambia Bank. 26. RW further testified that approval for early retirement was entirely at the discretion of the respondent and contingent on financial capacity as stipulated in the complainant's conditions of service, that is, the collective agreement for the period from 31st January 2021 to 31st December 2022. JS 27. In cross examination, RW acknowledged that, under the complainant's conditions of service, being in a conflict of interest, such as establishing a competing production company, was a dismissible offence. The respondent was aware of the complainant's intention to start his own production company and had determined that such an enterprise would not be permitted while he remained in employment. 28. RW also confirmed that in situations where an employee is unable to attend a disciplinary hearing, a union representative is permitted to represent them. However, in the complainant's case, no union representative attended the hearing. RW further explained that when an employee is dismissed or resigns, their contributions are refunded but not the employer's contribution. He conceded that the complainant was not paid his salary up to the date of dismissal but confirmed that service benefits included this period. He denied the allegation that the respondent had breached the disciplinary code. He clarified that an employee is not entitled to earnings if they have deserted their employment. 29. In re-examination, RW reiterated that the respondent does not pay employees who fail to report for duty as salaries are eained through the provision of services. He restated the respondent's position that early retirement is granted at its discretion and is subject to the availability of funds due to the financial implications of maintaining such employees on the payroll. 30. RW clarified that employees who are dismissed are compensated at the rate of two months' salary for each year of service. He stated that the J9 five-month formula referenced by the complainant applies only in proper cases of early retirement. Submissions 31. Ms. Puta, counsel for the complainant, submitted that the complainant qualified for early retirement under the terms of the applicable collective agreement. 32. As it pertains to the disciplinary case, it was submitted that the respondent failed to follow the procedure in the disciplinary code and instead opted to summarily dismiss the complainant. Counsel highlighted that whenever an employee is tenninated based on misconduct, the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and this is entrenched in the Constitution of Zambia. 33. Counsel submitted that even a worker who is lawfully summarily dismissed is entitled to all wages due. Meanwhile, the respondent did not compensate the complainant for the period from when his salary account was frozen to the date of his dismissal. 34. Counsel urged Court to award damages for unfair dismissal. She placed reliance on the case of Henry Million Mulenga v. Refined Oil products (1972) LTD( 11 an unreported IRC matter which, according to her, dealt with reinstatement. Counsel urged Court to award the complainant, in addition to damages for unfair dismissal, full terminal benefits, leave days, salary arrears, in house investment refund with interest and costs. JlO 35. Counsel for the respondent commenced her submissions with a summary of the pleadings exchanged. Relying on Section 85(3) of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act, Chapter 269 it was argued that the complainant failed to initiate proceedings within the statutorily prescribed time limit. To buttress her position, Ms. Mwale called in aid the case of Rajagopalan Kothanda v. Jenala Ngwiral21 which affirmed the mandatory requirement to file notice of complaint within 90 days. Counsel argued that the computation of the complainant's benefits, conducted on 20th July 2021, marked the accrual of the cause of action. Since the notice of complaint was only filed on 8th July 2022, almost a year later, the action should be deemed to be filed out of time, thereby stripping the court of jurisdiction. Court was thus urged to dismiss the complaint. 36. On the complainant's assertion that he was unfairly dismissed, recourse was had to Halsbury's Laws of England Volume 36, the cases of Richard Muchaka Mwanambulo v. Donovan Musoka Hikakonko<31 and Anderson K. Mazoka and Others v. Levy Mwanawasa 141 which authorities underscore the principle that pleadings must clearly define the issues to be adjudicated. 37. It was submitted that parties must outline all disputed claims in their pleadings to give fair notice to their opponents and enable the Court to identify the matters requiring determination. Counsel contended that the complainant sought to introduce unfair dismissal which was not properly pleaded. To reinforce this point, counsel cited the case of Zambia Revenue Authority v. Hitech Trading Company Limitedl51, which held that arguments raised in oral submissions, however spirited, cannot replace sworn evidence. Accordingly, it was argued Jll that the complainant's submission on unfair dismissal should be disregarded by the Court. 38. Counsel further contended that even assuming the complainant's version of events is considered, the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures outlined in the respondent's code. Moreover, the complainant did not deny the allegations of absenteeism; rather, he asserted that he had already retired from employment. 39. Regarding the complainant's entitlement to full terminal benefits, counsel cited the case of Charles Mvula v. Zambia Breweries Plc16l, in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to place an employee on early retirement rests solely with the employer. 40. Counsel emphasised that clause 9 of the collective agreement provides employees the right to apply for early retirement. However, the decision to grant such an application lies entirely at the discretion of the employer and is subject to the availability of resources. She argued that it was clear from the above authority that early retirement was not a matter of right but one which had to be approved and granted at the respondent's discretion guided by availability of resources. In this instance, the complainant disregarded the respondent's refusal and chose to consider himself retired. 41. Pursuant to the collective agreement and the provisions of the respondent's code, specifically as set out in exhibit "SK l ", the complainant was entitled only to two months' basic pay for each year served. The respondent had already paid these benefits and, therefore, J12 owed no further sums to the complainant. The payment also encompassed periods during which the complainant had ceased reporting for duty. 42. The submissions then addressed the claim for leave days. Ms. Mwale acknowledged that entitlement to leave is governed by Section 36 of the Employment Code Act. The respondent had paid the complainant for his accrued leave days, as evidenced by exhibit "SK12". She further contended that no credible evidence had been presented to demonstrate that certain leave days were omitted or that the computation provided was inaccurate. 43. On the claim for salary arrears, counsel contended that the complainant was claiming for the period from January to June, 2021, a period which he did not render any services to the respondent. In the premises counsel called in aid the case of Kitwe City Council v. Ngunil7J and Smart Phiri v. First Quantum Minerals and Operations Limited(Sl. The kernel of these authorities is that an employee should not be paid for a period they did not work as this would amount to unjust enrichment. 44. Counsel also submitted that the complainant was not entitled to the in-house investment refund primarily because he was paid the amount he contributed to the fund. Moreover, the said investment vehicle was no longer in existence. Ultimately the respondent's position was that the complainant failed to prove that he was entitled to more than a refund of his investment to a scheme which has since been abolished. J13 45. In conclusion, counsel beseeched Court to dismiss the complainant's case as it was bereft of merit. Analysis and decision 46. I have carefully considered the evidence on record and the opposing arguments presented by counsel. Facts not in dispute are that the complainant was employed by the respondent and last held the position of Senior Producer. The parties, however, hold divergent views on the complainant's mode of departure from employment and what his dues are. As such, the issues which require my determination can be broadly categorised as follows: (i) Nlode of separation (which resolution will ultimately resolve whether or not there was unfair dismissal) (ii) Whether the complainant is owed full tenninal benefits, leave benefits, salary arrears and investment refund. 47. Before I delve into the issues outlined above, it is cardinal to address the argument by respondent's counsel that the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine this matter on account of the fact that the complaint was filed out of time in abrogation of section 85(3) of Chapter 269 which demands that complaints are filed within 90 days of the occurrence of event that gives rise to a complaint. 48. A perusal of the record, however, establishes that the respondent did not conduct a search. Had it done so, it would have discovered that the complainant was granted leave to lodge complaint out of time in a ruling delivered by the learned Registrar on 8 th July, 2022. Thus, the Jl4 matter is properly before me and I shall proceed to make a determination. 49. I also find it necessary to, at this stage, also address the respondent's counsel's submission that the Court ought disregard the complainant's claim on unfair dismissal. According to her, this is because the issue was not pleaded and she relied on authorities to the effect that pleadings must define the issues to be adjudged. 50. I agree v.iith counsel that the complainant did not specifically plead unfair dismissal and only raised the issue during his testimony. Does it then mean that it ought to be disregarded? To answer this question, I have had recourse to the case of Undl Phiri v. Bank of Zambia19l where the Supreme Court held as follows: It is trite law that matters that a party wishes to rely upon, in, proving or resisting a claim must be pleaded. However, where a party does not object to evidence on unpleaded matter, the Court is not precluded from considering the evidence. 51. In the case at hand, there was no objection from counsel for the respondent regarding the aspect of unfair dismissal. As such, I would be within my province to consider the evidence and I accordingly do. Mode of separation from employment 52. On the one hand, the complainant was adamant that he retired from employment. On the other hand, the respondent maintained that the complainant was dismissed. In resolving this issue, it is incumbent to recapitulate the provision for early retirement contained in the Jl5 collective agreement and the conditions attached thereto. The provision states: An employee who has served the Corporation for at least ten ( 1 OJ years of continuous service may apply for early retirement from the employment of the Corporation, which shall be considered at the discretion of the Corporation, depen.ding on availability of resources. 53. rn accordance with the said clause, the complainant did apply to the respondent for early retirement through the internal memorandum dated 11th November, 2020. In response to the said application, the respondent wrote to the complainant on 16th November (citing only the relevant part) as follows: "We regret to inform you that management has not exercised its discretion to you early retirement due to lack of funds to support payment of your terminal benefits in the 2021 budget.• 54. What can be deduced from the forgoing firstly is that an employee could proceed on early retirement at the discretion of the respondent. Secondly, the respondent did not exercise its discretion in the complainant's favour and therefore the complainant remained its employee. 55. In the case Charles Mvula v. Zambia Breweries Pie (supra) relied on by the respondent, the Supreme Court stated as follows: In the case of Febby Nsarve & 38 Other v. Workers Compensation Fund Control Board we confirmed that where an employee triggers an early retirement provision, the right to place the employee on early retirement still remains with J16 the employer. From the evidence on record, we cannot fault the lower court when it found that the respondent in the present appeal did not authorise the appellant to proceed on. early retirement. The appellant's decision to stay away from work from 2'1d . January, 1997 to :Jtd February, 1997 certainly amounted to desertion., .. " 56. The Court went on to state that: What the cited cases go to underscore is that the same principle applies to this case, that an employment provision. such as that for early retirement which is left to management's discretion cannot be claimed by an employee as a matter of right. As demonstrated by the case earlier referred to, this Court has persistently, and consistently so held that, where a contract of employment provides for early retirement, the decision to place an employee on early retirement ultimately rests with the employer. We accordingly do n.ot subscribe to the alternative argument put fonvard by counsel for the appellant that, as the prevailing conditions of employment were coming to an end by 31 st December, 1996, the appellant who was not con.sen.ting to their variation, effective from January, 1997 could still be deemed to have been. retired at the end of 1996. 57. In the case at hand, as earlier established, the conditions of service did provide for early retirement. However, the conditions did make it clear that the employer reserved the right to accept or deny the application for early retirement. As guided by the forgoing case, whether or not one proceeds on early retirement rests on the approval of the respondent. In the absence of the respondent's approval, the complainant cannot or could not consider himself retired. And since he was still an employee, he was amenable to be disciplined by the respondent and dismissed if found wanting. J17 ,. 58. In terms of summary dismissal, section 50(1) (e) and (f) of the ECA provides that: {l)An employer shall not dismiss an employee summarily except in the following circumstances: (e} for continual absence from work without the permission of the empwyer or a reasonable excuse; or (/)fora misconduct under the employer's disciplinary rules where the punishment is summary dismissal. 59. According to the respondent's disciplinary code, absenteeism for more than 10 days is an offence for which one can be summarily dismissed. This is in confonnity with the law cited above. The uncontroverted evidence is that the complainant was formally charged with the offence of absenteeism for more than 10 days. The complainant in his testimony acknowledged that he received the charge letter and opted not to attend the scheduled disciplinary hearing as he considered himself retired. 60. I am of the considered view that the respondent was within its rights to dismiss the complainant. There is no doubt that he stayed away from work for more than 10 days. Further, he was given an opportunity to be heard on two occasions but he voluntarily opted to keep his voice to himself. He cannot now turn around and be heard to say the rules of natural justice were not adhered to or that he was unfairly dismissed. 61. In the premises, I find that the complainant exited employment lawfully by way of summary dismissal on 24th June 2021. JlS Tenninal benefits 62. The complainant seeks to be paid benefits in accordance with the conditions of service on retirement. According to him, having served from 2007 to 2021, he is entitled to 5 months' pay multiplied by the number of years served because he was unfairly dismissed. However, as already found, there was nothing unfair about the dismissal. 63. In the case of National Breweries Limited V. Phillip Mwenya1 101, the Supreme Court dealt with a similar situation and stated that since the respondent was properly dismissed, he could not be deemed to have been retired and he was not entitled to any retirement benefits. The apex Court went on to set aside the order awarding the respondent benefits in accordance with the retirement package. 64. Similarly in this case, having been properly dismissed in accordance with the respondent's disciplinary code and the law before being allowed to retire, the complainant is not entitled to any retirement benefits. He is, however, entitled to terminal benefits provided by his conditions of service and the law. 65. Section 51 of the ECA provides that: N An employer who summarily dismisses an employee under section 50 shall pay the employee, on dismissal, the wages and other accrued benefits due to the employee up to the date of dismissal." 66. Clause 25 (v) of the complainant's conditions of service provides that: An employee who is summarily dismissed for lawfu.l cause shall be paid wages and other accrued benefits due up to the date of the dismissal. Tenninal Jl9 ,. benefits to be calculated at the rate of two months basic pay for each year seroed. 67. The complainant in his testimony admitted that he received payment in instalment from the respondent who also settled his loan with Indo Zambia Bank from his dues. According to the respondent, the complainant was paid what was owed to him up to June 2021 despite that he stopped work in December, 2020. 68. A perusal of the computation document ("SK12") reveals that his service benefits were calculated as per clause 25(v) and the amount used in the calculation was not disputed by the complainant. Sala,y arrears 69. The complainant is claiming arrears from February when he stopped reporting for work. However, I see no justification for this claim. [ join hands with the respondent in its argument that the complainant is not deserving of such pay as he stopped providing a service to the respondent. The case of Kitwe City Council v. Nguni (supra) is very instructive on this issue. An employee should not be paid for a period they did not work as this would amount to unjust enrichment. Leave benefits 70. It is common cause that in this jurisdiction leave days are an accrued right which the complainant is entitled to regardless of the mode of exit from employment. Notwithstanding, it is incumbent on the complainant to prove entitlement. )20 .. 71. I have given careful consideration to the evidence and the submissions by counsel for the complainant that the complainant is entitled to leave benefits. The respondent on its part exhibited the computation of terminal benefits document (SK12) which indicates that his total leave pay was K 8,426.64 and the amount was paid through his bank account. 72. There is, however, no evidence on record that the complainant is owed more than what was already paid. As such, the claim fails. In house investment refund 73. Without a doubt, an employee is entitled to a refund of his contribution to a pension scheme. I take note of the fact that exhibit "SK12" includes the amount of K 510.00 as pension contribution to the pension scheme for the period from 1st May 2007 to 31st July 2015 when the in house scheme was abolished. There is no evidence from the complainant impugning the amount stated or that the scheme had been abolished back in 2015. 74. In the premises, the claim for inhouse investment benefits is ill fated and must fail. Conclusion and order 75. In a nutshell, the respondent declined the complainant's application for early retirement and this meant that the complainant remained an employee. His failure to report for duty amounted to unauthorised absence and this gave the respondent grounds to invoke disciplinary proceedings which ultimately led to his dismissal. I am satisfied that the summary dismissal was properly imposed and the complainant J21 ' • was paid what was due to him in accordance with his conditions of service and the law. 76. ln the circumstances, his entire complaint is dismissed for want of merit. 77. Each party shall bear own costs. 78. Parties are informed of the right to appeal. Delivered at Lusaka this 5 th day of September, 2025 ........ ~ .' ...... . M. C. Mikalile HIGH COURT JUDGE sUCOFZAMa col.lRT FOR Z4 " ~ ~ :., ~o~._ __ J_u...,.o=GE-· ,J V lw • " ""''""' JAi_ RELATIONS )22