Lewis Nathan Advocates v Cavmont Capital Holdings PLC (HPC 9 of 2013) [2014] ZMHC 95 (31 July 2014)
The omission to grant the right to appeal was a slip of the pen; as a matter of due process, leave to appeal ought to be granted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] ZMHC 95
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lewis Nathan Advocates; Defendant: Cavmont Capital Holdings PLC
- Court
- High Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- HPC 9 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted; stay of execution refused.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Right to Appeal, Stay of Execution
- 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
Lewis Nathan Advocates
Plaintiff
Cavmont Capital Holdings PLC
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted
- 2 Whether a stay of execution should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
The omission to grant the right to appeal was a slip of the pen; as a matter of due process, leave to appeal ought to be granted.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted; stay of execution refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted.
- No stay of execution of the judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2013/HPC/0009 AT THE COMMERCIAL REGISTRY HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: LEWIS NATHAN ADVOCATES (Suing as a PLAINTIFF AND CAVMONT CAPITAL HOLDINGS PLC DEFENDANT BEFORE HON. MADAM JUSTICE PRISCA MATIMBA NYAMBE, SC AT LUSAKA IN CHAMBERS For the Plaintiff: Mr. George Mpundu Kanja Messrs Palan George Advocates For the Defendant: Mr. L Linyama Messrs Eric Silwamba, Jalasi and Linyama Legal Practitioners RULING This is the Defendant’s application for Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Decision of the Court dated 8th April, 2014. The Plaintiff opposed the application. From the outset I wish to point out that the right to appeal is part of the process which this Court affirms. In the instant case the omission of the words “Right to Appeal is granted” was a slip of the pen and the right to appeal ought to have been granted as a matter of due process. With the above in view the Application for Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted. However there will be no Stay of execution of the said Judgment as the Plaintiff is a well known Advocate and in the unlikely event that the appeal would succeed, the Defendant will know where to find the Plaintiff. Dated this Prisca M. Nyambe, SC JUDGE R2