Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Zambia decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
Kabuswe Musonda v Zambia Daily Mail Limited (APPEAL NO. 19/2023) [2024] ZMCA 258 (2 October 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an employee’s appeal for unpaid benefits and allowance claims, holding he failed to prove entitlement and upholding costs to the employer.
Engen Petroleum Zambia Limited v PJP Associates Limited (Appeal No. 174 of 2023) [2024] ZMCA 257 (2 October 2024)
The Court of Appeal set aside a High Court judgment for failing to give clear reasons or enforceable findings, and remitted the civil dispute for rehearing.
Cacius Mulenga v Annie Lupiya (APPEAL NO. 314/2022) [2024] ZMCA 265 (2 October 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over land sale and specific performance, holding the appellant failed to prove fraud or forgery of the contract.
Victor Chimuka Siamuzyulu v Computicket Zambia Limited and Anor (COMP NO. IRCLK/ 608/2021) [2024] ZMHC 196 (1 October 2024)
The complainant was employed by Africa Supermarkets Limited and not Computicket. The redeployment to a position for which the complainant was unqualified, without proper consultation or suitable alternative, constituted redundancy under section 55(1)(b) of the Employment Code Act. The complainant is entitled to a redundancy package as per the Act. Although constructive dismissal was established, redundancy was the primary remedy. Claims for discrimination and severance pay failed for lack of evidence.
Source excerpt
Victor Chimuka Siamuzyulu v Computicket Zambia Ltd & Another (COMP NO. IRCLK/608/2021) [2024] ZMHC 236 (1 October 2024)
The court found that the complainant was employed by Africa Supermarkets Limited, not Computicket. The reduction in activities in the Computicket department due to Covid-19 led to a redundancy situation as the alternative position offered was unsuitable for the complainant's qualifications. The complainant was entitled to a redundancy package under the Employment Code Act. There was no constructive dismissal as the employer acted within the contract by offering redeployment, but the position was not suitable for the complainant.
Source excerpt
Christine Sawasawa v Colin Norman Roberts (2023/HPA/033) [2024] ZMHC 150 (30 September 2024)
The High Court of Zambia set aside a default judgment, holding that the appellant had raised triable issues and that procedural delay should not bar a trial absent prejudice.
Norman Koke v Alfred Tembo (2023/HP/1716) [2024] ZMHC 158 (30 September 2024)
The originating process was irregular and improperly before the court because the Plaintiff failed to obtain leave of court before issuing process for service out of jurisdiction as required by Order 10 rule 16.
Source excerpt
Astone Mwansa v Kokura Trading Ltd (2022/HPIR/1014) [2024] ZMHC 259 (30 September 2024)
The court found the truck driver was unfairly terminated without a hearing and awarded accrued salary, leave days, and housing allowance, but rejected several other claims.
Alcious Mulwiida v Wilsar Logistics Limited (2021/HN/IR/68) [2024] ZMHC 317 (30 September 2024)
The respondent failed to follow the rules of natural justice by not charging the complainant or giving him an opportunity to be heard before dismissal. The alleged offences were not substantiated, and the complainant's dismissal was both wrongful and unfair. The complainant is entitled to damages equivalent to nine months' salary, three months' salary arrears, accrued leave, and prorated gratuity. Claims for mental distress, toll fees, axle replacement, and costs are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Savenda Systems Limited vThe Anti Corruption Commission and Anor (2024/HPEF/015) [2024] ZMHC 295 (30 September 2024)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the application challenging the Warrant of Seizure issued by the Subordinate Court, as the Warrant has not been challenged or reviewed before the issuing court. All reliefs sought are anchored on the alleged nullity of the Warrant of Seizure, and without jurisdiction, the High Court cannot grant any remedies. The matter is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
Explore more
