Sam Chola & 2 Others v Mitti (Appeal 146 of 2000) [2002] ZMSC 25 (5 June 2002)
The appeal is allowed for the same reasons as in Choka v Chilufya, as the issues and arguments are identical.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] ZMSC 25
- Parties
- Appellant: Samchola; Appellant: Brown Chipanta; Appellant: Mpelembe Drilling Company Limited; Respondent: Emmanuel Mitti; Respondent: Kennedy Musonda
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 146 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Costs
- 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
Samchola
Appellant
Brown Chipanta
Appellant
Mpelembe Drilling Company Limited
Appellant
Emmanuel Mitti
Respondent
Kennedy Musonda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be allowed on the same grounds as in Choka v Chilufya
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is allowed for the same reasons as in Choka v Chilufya, as the issues and arguments are identical.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- appeal allowed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
, IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2000 (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: SAMCHOLA BROWN CHIPANTA MPELEMBE DRILLING COMPANY LIMITED I" APPELLANT 2"" APPELLANT 3'" APPELLANT AND EMMANUEL MITT! KENNEDY MUSONDA I" RESPONDENT 2"" RESPONDENT CORAM: Nguiube, CJ, Sakal. and Chiteng~ JJS. On S" June, 2002 For the appellant - Mrs. L. MhaJuku, of Messrs LX Mhaluku and Company For the respondent - No appearance RULING Ngulube, CJ, delivered the ruling of the Court. Case referred to:- I. Choka -v- Chilufya, Appeal No. 132 of 2000. We have considered this matter which is on all fours with the case of CHOKA -v- CHILUFYA, Appeal No. 132 of 2000 whose judgment has just been delivered and where the same issues and arguments arose. We repeat what we said in that case. We -.;.-....-.--~- /' affirm our decision in CHOKA and rule that fur the same reasons given there tbis appeal is allowed, with costs. . M. M. S. W. Ngulube, CIUEF JUSTICE • ...•.•••... ~ E. L. Sakala, SUPREME COURT JUDGE. . . ...... . F . eng~ SUPREME COURT GE.