Lutwika Mashilipa v Discover Insurance Comapny Limited (2023/HPC/0730) [2024] ZMHC 238 (19 August 2024)
The application for leave to appeal is misconceived because Section 23 of the Court of Appeal Act does not require leave to appeal from a High Court judgment in this case.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZMHC 238
- Parties
- Applicant: Lutwika Mashilipa; Respondent: Discover Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- 2023/HPC/0730
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Appeals From High Court
- 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
Lutwika Mashilipa
Applicant
Discover Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal is required from a High Court judgment under Section 23 of the Court of Appeal Act
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal is misconceived because Section 23 of the Court of Appeal Act does not require leave to appeal from a High Court judgment in this case.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
., ,. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA AT THE COMMERCIAL REGISTRY HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: LUTWIKA MASHILIPA AND 2023/HPC/0730 HIGH COURT OF 2A COf"ll"IU~ ,r-1 -Ara C Al DIVISION MBIA L f g AU6 2U24 REu,~ TRY DISCOVER INSURANCE COMPANY LIM TP. O. t,u)( ;>Q0~7. lUSAC(A RESPONDENT Coram: Hon. Lady Justice Chilombo Bridget Maka For the Applicant: Messrs. K. Mwale & Company For the Respondent: Messrs. Nchito & Nchito RULING Legislation Referred to: 1. Court of Appeal Act No 7 of 2016 Cases Referred to: 2. Chainama Hills Golf Club Limited vs. Golf Consultancy and Tourism Limited CAZ/08/19/2022. 3. Mirriam Banda Zimba vs. CFB Medical Centre Limited CAZ/08/344/2022. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The Applicant took out summons for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Order 10 Rule 4 Subrule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules. .- ' " 1.2. The summons are accompanied by an affidavit and skeleton arguments both dated the 14th August, 2024. 2. Background 2.1. The Applicant commenced action against the Respondent on 26 th October, 2023. Both parties settled their pleadings and the matter proceeded to trial. 2.2. Both parties testified and final Judgment was rendered on 16th July, 2024. The Applicant's claims were dismissed with costs. 2 . 3 . The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the said Judgment. 3. Consideration and Determination 3.1. I have considered the affidavit evidence and the skeleton arguments advanced by the Applicant. 3.2. Section 23 of the Court of Appeal Act stipulates the instances when an appeal to the Court of Appeal would require leave of Court. A perusal of the said provision reveals that there is no requirement for leave to be obtained before a party can appeal from a Judgment of the High Court. 3.3. The foregoing was restated by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Chainama Hills Golf Club Limited vs. Golf Consultancy and Tourism Limitedl 1I and Mirriam Banda Zimba vs. CFB Medical Centre Limited121• R2 4. Conclusion 4 . 1. There is no need for the Applicant to seek leave to appeal against the Judgment in issue. This is because the Judgment does not fall in any of the categories set out in Section 23 of the Act. 4.2. The Application is therefore misconceived and 1s accordingly dismissed. Delivered at Lusaka this 19th day of August, 2024 .............. _afjf)_ ." .......... . Chilombo Bridget Maka HIGH COURT JUDGE R3