One World Logistics and Freight Zambia Limited v One World Logistics (UK) Limited (Application No. 106 of 2025) [2025] ZMCA 140 (2 December 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBI~ couRTOFAPp¼" Application No. 106 of 2025 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA {Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN : ONE WORLD LOGISTICS AND FREIGHT ZAMBIA LIMITED APPELLANT AND ONE WORLD LOGISTICS (UK) LIMITED RESPONDENT Coram: Kondolo, Patel and Chembe JJA 25th November & 2 nd December 2025 For the Appe llant: Mr. G. S. Cornhil l of Messrs W ilson & Cornhill L. P. with Mr. M. Chisun ka & Mr. J. Chimankata - Messrs. Chait L. P. Fo r the Respondent: M r. Mr. B. Mapula nga of M essrs Lynda Mata ka L. P. RULING Patel, JA, delivered the Ruling of the Court. Rl Legislation & Rules Referred to: 1. The Court of Appeal Rules, Statutory Instrument No . 65 of 2016 2. The Court of Appeal Act No. 7 of 2016 3. The Rules of the Supreme Court, Chapter 25 of the Law s of Zamba Cases Referred to: 1. Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited v Savenda Management Services Limited {2016} Z. L. R vol 3 478 2. Derek Mukokanwa v Anthony Mbewe, & others -CAZ Appea l No. 159/2021 3. Finance Bank Zambia limited v Dim itrios Monokandilos and Filandra Kouri SCZ/ 8/37 / 2019 4. Muleka Investments Limited and two Others v Development Bank of Zambia -CAZ Application No. 79 of 2024 5 . lnde Credit Company Limited v Green Park Transport and 2 others- CAZ Application No. 93 of 2024 6. Rosemary Nyangu v Pamodzi Hotel Pie - SCZ ZMSC 151 7. Clever Mpoha and Savenda Management Services v ETS Rwasa Salvator SCZ/ 08/ 025/2021 R2 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 This is a Ruling in respect of a Notice of Motion filed on 3i5t October 2025, for an Order to vary, reverse or discharge the Ruling of a Single Judge dated 27t h October 2025 made pursuant to Order X rule 2 (8) of the Court of Appea l Rules 1 . (hereinafter referred to as the Motion). 1.2 The Motion was filed with a supporting Affidavit sworn by one Timothy Manda Kazawala in his capacity as a Director 'Gateway' in the Appellant Company together with Skeleton Arguments, an Ex Parte Order and a certificate of Urgency, all of the same date. Needless to observe, that the Appellant shou Id actually be cited as the Applicant, in the renewed Motion before us. 1.3 The Motion was opposed by the Respondents' opposing process filed into Court on 21st November 2025. 1.4 We could have in our discretion, proceeded to determine the Motion from the Record before us as settled by the Cou rt in the case of Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited v Savenda Management Services Limited 1 and more recently in the case of Derek Mukokanwa v Anthony Mbewe, & others,2 where we stated that an incompetent application was not worth hearing at a II . 1.5 We did however hear the Motion and for reasons that will become clear, it is neither necessary to recant the contents of the Motion nor summarize the arguments advanced by Counsel respectively at the hearing of the Motion . R3 2.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF THE MOTION 2.1 Without unnecessary ado, and without restating the averments in the Affidavit and Arguments on which this Motion is based, we note that the Motion before us is anchored on Order X rule 2 (8) of the Court of Appeal Rules1 . 2.2 Order X rule 2 (8) provides as follows: "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of a single judge and who intends to have such a decision varied, discharged or reversed by the Court under section 9 (b) of the Act shall, before the date of hearing of the application by the Court, file 3 extra copies of the proceedings, including copies of the affidavits filed by the other party prior to the single judge's decision, for the use of the court." Emphasis added. 2.3 We place reliance on a Ruling of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Finance Bank Zambia Limited v Dimitrios Monokandilos and Filandra Kouri 3 which analysed the requirements of a Motion to set aside, discharge, vary or reverse the decision of the single judge of the Court. In that case, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to guide litigants on the requirements of section 4 band rule 48 (4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Chapter 25 of the Laws of Zamba. 2.4 The Supreme Court, on page R17 /18, speaking to the provisions above stated as follows : R4 "It is self-evident, even from a cursory reading of sub-rule 4 of Rule 48, that a person who is aggrieved by a decision of a single Judge of this Court and who desires to have such decision varied, discharged or reversed by the (full) Court must place the same material in the nature of copies of proceedings, affidavits, that will have been placed before the single Judge prior to the single judge's decision for the use of the (full) Court. It can scarcely be disputed that, as worded, Rule 48(4) restricts the party who invokes this Rule in the sense that it does not permit or give room for the introduction of any fresh or additional materials before the (full) Court beyond whatever will have been placed before the Single Judge 'prior toJ such Judge's decision". 2.5 We have, in several decisions of this Court, warned litigants of the undesired effect of non-compliance with the form and content of the Motion. In our recent Rulings delivered in the case of Muleka Investments Limited and two Others v Development Bank of Zambia4, and lnde Credit Company Limited v Green Park Transport and 2 others 5 , we dismissed the Motion for being incompetent. 2.6 A detailed review of the Affidavit in Support of the Motion deposed by one Timothy Manda Kazawala reveals the following exhibits: i. TMKl - substantive Judgment of the lower Court of 24th May 2023 . ii. TMK2- copy of the Judgment on Assessment dated 16th Ju ly 2025 iii. TMK3-Notice of Appeal RS iv. TMK4- Memorandum of Appeal v. TMKS- Ruling of the single Judge dated 27th October 2025 2. 7 Reverting to the Motion before us, we are of the settled view that the same is incompetent, as it does not contain copies of the process that was fi led and placed before the single Judge of this Court, based on which the single Judge delivered the impugned Ruling, the subject of this Motion. 2.8 The above fundamental flaw aside, we also note that the ill-fated Motion is drafted as an appeal from the decision of the single Judge. This is completely in abrogation of settled law and practice in the jurisdiction. 2.9 The Supreme Court has consistently warned litigants that presenting a Motion before the full Court, emanating from a decision of a single Judge in the form of an appeal, is fatal. In Rosemary Nyangu v Pamodzi Hotel Plc6 and more recently in Clever Mpoha and Savenda Management Services v ETS Rwasa Salvator7 , the Supreme Court dismissed motions on account that they were erroneously presented as appeals from decisions of a single Judge as opposed to renewed applications. 2.10 In our Ruling delivered in the cited case of Muleka Investments Limited, we stated as follows: "Things being as they are, we are of the considered view that the Motion before us is incompetent and will not be entertained. We hasten to state that we need not have expended judicial time R6 ' . on this ill-fated Motion save for the fact that we implore litigants to heed and comply with the mandatory nature of the Rules of this Court. In future, we will simply dismiss Motions that do not comply with the provisions of Order X rule 2 (8) of the Court of Appeal Rules."1 (Emphasis added). 2.11 Inescapably, the provisions of Order X rule 2 (8) are stated in mandatory terms. This Motion is fatally defective, and we have no hesitation in dismissing it as being incompetent with costs to the Respondent. ~---~----:::::---,. - M. M. KONDOLO S. C. COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE A. N. PATEL S. C. Y. CHEMBE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE R7