Zesco Limited v New Londe Motel (Appeal 86 of 2001) [2003] ZMSC 65 (14 May 2003)
The interim injunction was set aside because it created an inequitable situation by allowing the respondent to consume electricity without payment, contrary to the principles of equity underlying injunctive relief.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] ZMSC 65
- Parties
- Appellant: ZESCO Limited; Respondent: New Londe Motel
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 86 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Electricity Supply, Fraudulent Billing, Mandatory Injunction, Arrears, Equitable Remedies
- 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
ZESCO Limited
Appellant
New Londe Motel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the August 1998 bill rendered by the appellant was fraudulent and of no effect
- 2 Whether the disconnection of electricity to the respondent's premises was unlawful and unjustified
- 3 Whether a mandatory injunction to reconnect electricity was warranted
Ratio Decidendi
The interim injunction was set aside because it created an inequitable situation by allowing the respondent to consume electricity without payment, contrary to the principles of equity underlying injunctive relief.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- interim injunction set aside
- costs awarded to appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA APPEAL NO. 86/2001 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (CIVIL JURISDICTION) BETWEEN: ZESCO LIMITED (cid:9) AND APPELLANT NEW LONDE MOTEL (cid:9) RESPONDENT CORAM LEWANIKA, DCJ., MAMBILIMA, CHITENGI HS On 2thl May 2002 14" May 2003. For the Appellant: (cid:9) For the Respondent: (cid:9) At KONDOLO. Legal Counsel. ZESCO No Appearance. JUDGMENT LEWANIKA, DCJ., delivered the judgment of the court. When we heard this appeal we allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the interim injunction and said that we would give our reasons later and we now do so. The Appellant had instituted proceedings against the Respondent claiming for, inter alia:- a declaration that the August, 1998 bill rendered by the Appellant to the Respondent is fraudulent and of no effect and that the Respondent is entitled to power supply: a declaration that the disconnection of electricity to the Respondent's premises on 20th November. 1998 was unlawful and unjustified; a mandatory injunction to reconnect electricity. The evidence on record is that the Respondent owned an hotel in Matero Township, Lusaka which was supplied electricity by the Appellant. The Respondent was in arrears with his payments for electricity and was presented with a bill for K10,000,000,00 which he disputed. The evidence on record shows that the Respondent was not able to produce documentary evidence of payment for the electricity bills, whilst on the other hand, the Appellant was able to show that the cheques paid by the Respondent had been dishonoured by its bankers. On 17th December, 1998, the Respondent was granted an ex- parte mandatory injunction compelling the Appellant to reconnect power to the Respondent's premises pending final determination of the matter or further order. The Application was subsequently heard inter parties and an interim injunction in the same terms was granted to the Respondent on 24th November, 1999. Since the grant of the injunction, the Respondent has not paid for electricity consumed on its premises and because of the injunction the Appellant has not been able to disconnect supply. The grant of the injunction by the court below has created an inequitable situation whereas an injunction is meant to be an equitable remedy. It was for this reason that we allowed the appeal and set aside the interim injun on D. M. Lewanika DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE I. M. C. Mambilima SUPREME COURT JUDGE (cid:9) SUPREME (cid:9) T JUDGE