University of Zambia Council and Ors v Osborne (SCZ Appeal 84 of 1999) [1999] ZMSC 89 (21 October 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) SCZ APPEAL NO. 84/99 BETWEEN: THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA COUNCIL THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA MWANGALA BEATRICE KAMUWANGA 1st APPELLANT 2n» APPELLANT 3rd APPELLANT AND CONNIE MAIWASE OSBORNE RESPONDENT Coram: Chaila, Muzyamba, Lewanika, JJS 21st October, 1999 For the Appellants : Dr. M. B. Kamuwanga of Kamuwanga & Company For the Respondents: Nil Chaila, JS, delivered the judgment of the court. JUDGMENT The appellants appealed against a decision of the lower court wanting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent, a former employee of the University of Zambia, restraining them from evicting her from the house she had been given as an employee of the University. The respondent had been an employee of the University and she resigned on her own accord from the - J2 - employment of the University through a letter written by herself through the University on 18th September, 1997. Prior to her resignation, she had been allocated a house by the University but she never took occupation of the house. The facts show that in fact she had sublet the house to some people. The facts also show that the University had commenced proceedings to re­ possess the house from her. In his short ruling, the learned trial Judge simply stated: “Having listened to advocates from both sides, the nature of claim is such that the question of her right to purchase the house is crucial and would be best resolved at main hearing. In the interest of justice I would allow continued interim injunction until final determination of the main issue”. Dr. Kamuwanga has advanced three grounds of appeal and she ably argued that the learned trial Judge erred in making or granting an injunction in favour of the respondent. We have read her grounds and we have listened to her and we appreciate the time she spent of trying to make some meat in the ground from the short ruling of the learned trial Judge and we commend her for the manner in which she has presented the case to us. She was on a firm ground when she argued that the respondent had no legal right to protect and we agree with her in that the respondent never occupied the house, although she had been assigned. She had sublet the house to other people. The - J3 - respondent had resigned from the University and was no longer in employment of the University. We do not see how the question of purchasing the house would arise when in future the University would decide to see houses to its employees or sitting tenants. We are of the view that this is a case where if there was any genuine claims, damages would suffice. There was no need to grant an injunction or to allow the continued operation of the temporal injunction. We allow the appeal with costs. The temporary injunction is set aside with immediate effect. M. S. CHAILA SUPREME COURT JUDGE W. M. MUZYAMBA SUPREME COURT JUDGE D. M. LEW ANIKA SUPREME COURT JUDGE