Jimmy Kalumbe v Nordic Minerals Limited and Anor (CAZ/08/469/2025) [2025] ZMCA 187 (22 December 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBIA CAZ/08/469/2025 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: JIMMY KALUMBE AND NORDIC MINERALS LIMITED 1 ST RESPONDENT ALBERT MWAMBA 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON. LADY JUSTICE P. C. M. NGULUBE IN CHAMBERS For the Appellant ✓ : Mr. 0. Sambo, Messrs. Emmanuel & Onesimus Legal Practitioners on behalf of Messrs. K. Tembo &Co. For the Respondent: Mrs. N. Daka & Ms. Z. Nambeya1 Messrs. G. M. Legal Practitioners RULING Cases referred to: 1. Laston Phiri vs Tropical Diseases Research Centre - SCZ Appeal No. 005/2014 2. Westeni Co-op Haulage Limited & Another us Zambia Seed Company Limited - Appeal No. 1 76/ 2021 CamScanner 3. Attorney General vs David Mumba & Nfr:holas Chileshe -Appeal No. 138/2022 Legislation referred to: 1. The Court of Appeal Rules, Statutory Instrument Number 65 of 2016 1.0 lNTRODUCTION 1.1 This is a ruling on the respondent's application to dismiss the appeal for irregularity made pursuant to Order X Rule 9(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. 1 1.2 The application was accompanied by an affidavit deposed to by Jonas Kunda, the Mining Consultant in the respondent company. The gist of the affidavit in opposition is that the appellant had obtained leave to appeal out of time and served the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal on 8th September, 2025. 1.3 It was deposed that the memorandum of appeal is incompetent because the error of the lower Court complained of is not apparent from the sole ground of appeal. Further that the memorandum of appeal has arguments and narratives and does not specify the points of law or fact which are alleged to have been wrongly decided by the lower Court. -R2- CamScanner 1.4 In the Skeleton Arguments in supp0rt of the application, Counsel for the respondent submitted that it is a legal requirement for the appellant to state concisely the factual grounds or error in the legal reasoning in the judgment appealed against. 1.5 To buttress this argument, Counsel cited Order X Rule 9(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules and the cases of Laston Phiri vs Tropical Diseases Research Centrel and Western Co-op Haulage Limited & Another vs Zambia Seed Company Limited. 2 1.6 Lastly, Counsel argued that the appeal is irregular since the entire appeal is tainted by the irregular memorandum of appeal. 1. 7 In the affidavit in opposition, the appellant deposed that the ground of appeal is clear and unambiguous, and expresses the appellant's dissatisfaction with the decision of the lower Court. 1.8 That the ground of appeal challenges the Judgment of the lower Court on the basis that the respondent failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish ownership of the property subject of the dispute. That in any event, the appellant has not pointed out which part of the ground of appeal is allegedly vague. 1. 9 In the Skeleton Arguments in support of the affidavit in opposition, Counsel for the appellant submitted that the ground of appeal -R3- CamScanner complies with Order X Rule 9 as it specifies the basis of the complaint, which is that there was insufficient evidence adduced by the respondent to prove ownership. 1.10 Counsel also differentiated this case from Western Co•op Haulage Limited & Western Province Co-operative Union Limited (supra), arguing that unlike that case,. the ground of appeal here is clearly stated and specifies the factual determination being challenged. 1.11 Counsel cited the case of Attorney General vs David Mumba & Nicholas Chileshe4 Appeal No. 38/2022 where this Court looked at the subject matter of the appeal and concluded that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the manner in which the grounds of appeal were couched, and allowed the appeal to proceed. 1.12 Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the respondent's application. 2.0 DECISION 2.1 I have considered the parties' affidavits and arguments in support and in opposition to the application. Order X Rule 9(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires that a memorandum of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, -R4- CamScanner without narrative, the grounds of appeal, specifying whether the appeal is agwnst the whole or part of the decision and whether the grounds are of law or fact. 2.2 The rationale behind the rule is to ensure clarity of the issues in dispute, enable the opposing party to know the case it has to meet, and assist the Court in identifying the real questions for determination. 2.3 The ground of appeal in question is couched as follows: "The Court be low erred in law and fact when it determined that the appellant had illegally collected l 00 trucks of copper ore from the 1st respondent based on insufficient evidence given that the 1st respondent did not adduce proper proof of ownership.,, 2.4 While the ground is lengthy, it is evident that it challenges a specific finding of the lower Court, namely, the determination that the appellant illegally collected copper ore belonging to the respondent. The basis of the challenge is clearly stated to be insufficiency of evidence, particularly the alleged failure by the respondent to prove ownership. 2.5 This Court agrees that the grounds of appeal should not be argumentative or narrative. The guiding consideration is -RS· CamScanner whether the ground discloses a discernible complaint and whether the respondent is prejudiced in understanding the case it has to meet. It is my considered view that in this matter, the alleged error of the lower Court is apparent on the face of the ground of appeal couched, and the factual legal issues are sufficiently identified. 2.6 Therefore, I find that the ground of appeal, though not elegantly drafted, substantially complies with Order X Rule 9(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. It discloses a clear and intelligible complaint against the Judgment of the lower Court. 2. 7 In view of the foregoing, the respondent's application to dismiss the appeal for irregularity is therefore without merit and is accordingly dismissed. 2.8 Costs to the appellant. Dated this 22nd day of December, 2025. 8L. L HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE P. C. M. NGULUBE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE -R6- CamScanner