Miller v Soy Nutrients Ltd (SCZ APPEAL NO. 19/91) [1991] ZMSC 73 (30 July 1991)
Order 27 Rule 4 expressly permits the grant of an injunction in suits for restraining breach of contract, including those involving restraint of trade and claims for damages; the existence of a serious question to be tried justifies the injunction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] ZMSC 73
- Parties
- Appellant: William Thomas Miller; Respondent: Soy Nutrients Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- SCZ APPEAL NO. 19/91
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Restraint of Trade, Breach of Contract
- 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
William Thomas Miller
Appellant
Soy Nutrients Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an injunction can be granted in a claim for damages arising from breach of a restraint of trade provision in a contract
- 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding breach of restraint of trade
Ratio Decidendi
Order 27 Rule 4 expressly permits the grant of an injunction in suits for restraining breach of contract, including those involving restraint of trade and claims for damages; the existence of a serious question to be tried justifies the injunction.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Case remitted to the High Court judge with indication of power and jurisdiction to order an injunction
- Costs of this appeal and in the court below to be paid by the appellant to the respondent forthwith
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ APPEAL NO. 19/91 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) ■ ■ • ■; c. WILLIAM THOMAS MILLER Appellant v SOY NUTRIENTS LIMITED Respondent V a Ai;- CORAM: Gardner, AJ. S, Sakala and Chai la, JJ. S. 30 July 1991 C. L. M. Mundia of Mundla Kakoma & Co. for the appellant G. F. Patel of Musa Dudhia & Co. for the respondent JUDGMENT Gardner, AJ. S., delivered the judgment of the court. In this appeal Mr. Mundia*has argued that, in a claim for damages arising out of a breach of a provision of a contract in restraint of trade, there can, under Order 27 of the High Court Rules, be no order for an injunction. He also argued that there was no serious question to be tried. Order 27 Rule 4 specifically provides that in any suit for restraining the defendant from any breach of contract, whether the same be accompanied by any claim for damages or not, it shall be lawful for the plaintiff to apply for an injunction. ■ S - r Whether or not the defendant intends to take other employment which would be In breach of the provision of the contract in restraint of trade is a serious question to be tried. The appeal is dismissed. The case is remitted to the High : '■ ■ - - Court judge with an indication that he has the power and jurisdiction to order an injunction. Costs of this appeal and in the court below to be paid by the appellant to the respondent forthwith.' J2 I B. T. GARDNER AG. SUPREME COURT JUDGE