Kalika Phiri v Samson Mukasano and Anor (CAZ/08/476/2023) (3 December 2025) – ZambiaLII

)L IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBIA CAZ/08/476/2023 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) r-~ ,.. ..,- BETWEEN: 0 3 L_.., Lu_.J KALIKA PHIRI APPLieANT AND SAMSON MUKASANO 1ST RESPONDENT CHISENGA KUNDA KAPI INTENDED RESPONDENT 2ND Before Hon. Mrs. Justice A. M. Banda-Bobo in Chambers on 3rd December, 2025. For the Appellant: Mr. C. Siachitema and Mr. N.Sakala both Messrs of Lusitu Chambers For the 2nd Intended Respondent: Mr. Mwenya of Messrs Lukona Chambers, Mr. W. Mwandila and Dr O.M.M Banda of Messrs 0. M. M. Banda and Company RULING Cases referred to: 1. James Chanda Kasamanda v. Attorney General (1988-1989) Z.R 110 (SC) 2. African Banking Corporation Zambia Limited (T / A Atlas Mara) v. Mattaniah Investments Limited (In Receivership), John Peter Sangwa, Leasing Finance Company Limited and Agrifoods And Allied Industries Limited CAZ Application No. 73/2019 3. Access Bank (Zambia) Limited v. Attorney General 2018/CCZ/009 4. Doujin Zhuang, Wang Qinghai and Kingphar Company Zambia Limited v. Bumu General Trading FZE Appeal No. 57 /2021 .. 5. Philip Mutanika and Another v. Kenneth Chipungu, SCZ Judgment No.13of2014 6. Savenda Management Services Limited v. Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited and Gregory Chifire, (Appeal No. 37 /2017) Selected Judgment No. 47 /2018 at Page J13 7. Milingo Lungu v. Attorney General and Another, 2022/CCZ/006V Legislation referred to: • The Court of Appeal Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 65 of 2016 • Rules of the Supreme Court, 1965 ( 1999 Edition) (White Book) • The Court of Appeal Act, 2016 1.0. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Court wishes to render its smcere apologies for the delay in delivering this Ruling in this matter. The delay is ascribed to a huge amount of work before the Court, coupled with administrative assignments. The delay is deeply regretted. 1.2 This is a Ruling on a Notice of Motion by the 2nd Intended Respondent, filed on 26th December, 2023, who seeks an order of this Court to expunge paragraphs 6,7,8,10,13,14,15, 16,17,18,20,22 and 24 from the Applicant's affidavit in Reply to the affidavit in opposition to summons for an order to join the 2nd Respondents to these proceedings. R2 t. 1. 3 The application is premised on Order 7, Rules 1 and 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016. 1.4 The grounds on which the 2nd Intended Respondent seeks to have the mentioned paragraphs expunged, are that the said paragraphs contain new issues not contained in the affidavit in opposition to the summons for joinder of a party, that they contain extraneous scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive matters, which are prejudicial to the alleged 2nd Intended Respondent. Further, that if they are not expunged, the 2nd Intended Respondent will not have an opportunity to respond to the new issues raised in the affidavit in Reply, which it was claimed had resulted in the altering of the Applicant's original reliefs prayed for in the High Court. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The background to the matter is that the 1st Respondent had taken out an action in the lower Court, contending that he was the rightful heir to the throne of Senior Chief Muchinda. The Applicant counter-claimed that he was lawfully selected in 2019 as a successor to the throne, in R3 -c accordance with the Lala culture, customs and traditions for selecting a successor to the said throne. 2.2 In a Judgment rendered on 31st August, 2023, the Court below found for the 1st Respondent when it adjudged that he was the rightful heir to the throne, while the Applicant's Counter-claim was dismissed. Disturbed by the verdict, the Applicant lodged a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal before this Court, fronting fifteen (15) grounds of appeal, one of which was challenging the declaration that the 1st Respondent was the rightful heir to ascend to the throne of Senior Chief Muchinda. 3.0 SUMMONS FOR JOINDER 3.1 On 12th October 2023, the Applicant filed Summons for an order for joinder pursuant to Order VII Rule 1 ad 2 as read with Order X Rule 16 ( 1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and Order 15 Rule 6 (2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC) of England, 1999 Edition. 3.2 The Application was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the Appellant. The gist of the affidavit was that it had been brought to his attention by the 1st Respondent that the R4 t. execution of judgment had already been done and the 2 nd Intended Respondent had been installed as Senior Chief Muchinda; and not the 1st Respondent who had been declared as the rightful heir to the throne by the lower Court, whose judgment he was appealing against. That it was thus in the interest of justice that the 2nd Intended Respondent be joined to the proceedings as the outcome of the same will impact him as well. That he thus needed to defend his claim and interest as the one installed as chief in place of the 1st Respondent. This is but a summary of the affidavit which contained twelve (12) paragraphs. 3.3 On 10th November, 2023, the 2nd Intended Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the applicant's affidavit in support. The gist of his affidavit, which comprised of 24 paragraphs, was that the Applicant's claim to be declared the rightful heir to the throne of Senior Chief Muchinda was dismissed. That he would suffer prejudice if joined, because the reliefs sought, nature and character thereof will change. 3.4 Further, that the 1st Respondent has not challenged his ascension to the throne. That thus the real issue will be a RS cross claim between the Applicant and himself. He was of the view that he was rightfully installed, and that if he was joined to the proceedings, it would bring into question his selection and installation as senior chief Muchinda, an issue that was not dealt with in the lower court where he had and will have no opportunity to be heard. 3.5 That there are no material particulars upon which this court may exercise its discretion judiciously. 3.6 On 23rd November, 2023 the Applicant filed an affidavit in Reply, containing 28 paragraphs. For reasons that will become clear in this ruling I will not endeavor to reproduce the same, suffice to state that the Applicant rebutted all the assertions made by the 2nd Intended Respondent, and went at great length to justify why this Court should grant the order of joinder of the 2nd Respondent to the proceedings. 4.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUE 4.1 Before the application for joinder could be heard, the 2nd Intended Respondent filed a Notice of Motion to Raise a Preliminary Issue. The Notice to raise a Preliminary Issue R6 was filed on 26th December, 2023, wherein the 2nd Intended Respondent sought an order of this court to expunge, from the affidavit in Reply to the affidavit in opposition for joinder, paragraphs 6, 7,8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,22 and 24. 4.2 The grounds for the application, are two-fold, vis; (i) The applicant's affidavit in Reply dated 23rd November, 2023 contains new issues not contained in the Affidavit in Opposition to Summons for J oinder of a party and contains extraneous, scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive matters which are prejudicial to the alleged 2nd Intended Respondent. (ii) The alleged 2nd Intended Respondent will not have an opportunity to respond to the new issues raised in the affidavit in reply which have resulted in the altering of the Applicants original reliefs prayed for by the Applicant in the High Court. 4.3 In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, and sworn by the 2nd Intended Respondent, it was averred that a perusal of the affidavit in Reply, the subject of this Motion shows that the Applicant deposed to new issues that were R7 l not contained in his affidavit in opposition to summons for an order to join in the proceedings filed into court on 16th November, 2023. He set out the seemingly offending paragraphs as captured in paragraph 4.1 above herein. 4.4 He went on to state that paragraphs 14 to 18 contain scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive averments to which he would not be given an opportunity to respond to, and as advised by his counsel. Further, that these averments were never raised in his affidavit in opposition. That this is also true for the averments in paragraphs 20 to 22. That the same is true for the averments in paragraphs 24, which raises a new issue. 4.5 It was his averment that Counsel had advised him, and he believed the said advise, that the affidavit in Reply should only deal with the averments in an affidavit in opposition, and that the deponent to an affidavit in reply should not introduce new matters as issues in response, as is the case with some averments in the Affidavit in Reply. 4.6 The Applicant opposed the Notice of Motion to Raise a Preliminary issue and filed an affidavit to that effect on 12th February 2024. The Affidavit was sworn by the Applicant. R8 It was his averment that all the issues raised in his Affidavit in Reply were a direct response to the issues that the 2nd Intended Respondent raised in his affidavit in opposition to the affidavit for joinder of a party. 4. 7 Further that some of the issues raised emanated from the judgment of the court, as exhibited at "CKK" in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition and appearing at pages J49 and JS0. The deponent also referred to the Consent Oder under cause No. 2016/HP/1877, where the Judge in the lower court ordered that the issue of the rightful heir to the throne of Senior Chief Muchinda be referred to the Lala Royal Establishment, and that this is reproduced in grounds 12, 13 and 15 of the Memorandum of appeal, which is exhibited as KPl in the affidavit in support of joinder. 4.8 All in all the Applicant deposits that all the impugned paragraphs in his Affidavit in Reply are a direct response to the Intended Respondents Affidavit in Opposition, and 2nd therefore there is nothing untoward in his averments in the affidavit in Reply, and contrary to what has been contended. R9 ,. 4.9 On 29th February 2024, the 2nd Intended Respondent filed an affidavit in Reply, to the affidavit in opposition to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to raise a preliminary issue. 4.10 In his Reply, he alluded to the issues raised in his affidavit in support of the Notice of motion and maintained that all the paragraphs in issue introduced new issues not covered in the affidavit in opposition to summons for joinder filed into court on 16th November, 2023. 4 .11 Further that as regards paragraphs 8 of the said affidavit, it was his deposition that the issue of his installation has never been contested. That therefore any averments on how the Senior Chief Muchinda is installed and production of the alleged documents, relating to the installation, amounts to new issues to which he will not be able to respond to at this stage. 4.12 Responding to paragraph 19 of the affidavit in in Reply, it was his deposition that he was not a party to the proceedings referred to therein. All in all the 2nd Intended Respondent replied to all the issues raised in the affidavit in Reply seriatum. RlO 5.0 SKELETON ARGUMENTS 5.1 ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT 5.2 In respect of the application for the expungment of paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 24 from the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply, it was submitted that the grounds and arguments raised are firmly rooted in the legal principles governing pleadings, affidavits, and the Court's inherent jurisdiction. 5.3 It was submitted that the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016,_and the Court of Appeal Act do not explicitly prescribe detailed rules on the content and form of affidavits. That in the absence of specific statutory provisions, the Court must look to established procedural practice and secondary sources such as Order 41 of the White Book, Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC), which provides authoritative guidance. Further that, Order 41 Rule 6 confers the Court with power to strike out any matter in an affidavit that is scandalous, irrelevant, or otherwise oppressive. That the White Book further underscores, in Order 41 Rule 5, that affidavits must be confined to facts within the deponent's Rll personal knowledge, or statements of belief supported by credible grounds and sources. 5.4 It was further argued that the fundamental legal principle governing affidavits in pleadings and affidavits in reply, is that they must not contain new issues, extraneous, irrelevant, or scandalous material. We were accordingly referred to the case of James Chanda Kasamanda v. Attorney General1 where the Supreme Court condemned , the practice of introducing new grounds or issues in affidavits that were not previously pleaded or deposed to, as this undermines the fairness of proceedings and prejudices the opposing party. 5.5 That in this case, several of the paragraphs identified, namely paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, contain new issues not previously raised in the affidavit in opposition, thus amounting to fresh allegations or grounds that are impermissible at this interlocutory stage. That paragraph 10, which addresses the Court's pronouncements on the lineage of the respondent to Senior Chief Muchinda, introduces a new issue, which the 2nd Intended Respondent R12 was not afforded an opportunity to respond to; and that such matters are inadmissible under the established rules. 5.6 That similarly, paragraphs 13 to 18 include allegations about investigations conducted by the Applicant on the Chieftainship, which should have been undertaken before the filing of the initial pleadings and not subsequently introduced in Reply. That including such new allegations at this stage contravenes the principles laid down in Order 41, Rule 6 (RSC) which limits affidavits to statements of facts within the deponent's knowledge or belief grounded on credible sources. 5.7 Furthermore, that the Court emphasized 1n African Banking Corporation Zambia Limited v. Mattaniah Investments Limited and Others2 that in the absence of . explicit statutory provisions, reliance must be placed on procedures established in the White Book, which expressly prohibit the inclusion of extraneous or inadmissible matter in affidavits. 5.8 That the paragraphs concerning investigations (14 to 18) are clearly extraneous as they were never deposed to in the original pleadings, and their late inclusion prejudices the R13 2nd Intended Respondent's right to a fair response. That this falls short of the requirements for affidavits and evidence and violates the principles enunciated in Order 41, Rule 5, and relevant case law. 5.9 Furthermore, that paragraphs 20, 22, and 24 contain scandalous, irrelevant, and oppressive allegations, such as assertions about Court attendance and investigations that do not bear directly on the issues of joinder or the substantive matters in dispute. That these paragraphs offend the provisions of Order 41 Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which restrict affidavits to statements of facts, circumstances, or beliefs based on credible sources. That the White Book clarifies that affidavits should avoid the inclusion of legal arguments, prayers, objections, or conclusions, which these paragraphs seem to attempt. 5.10 In addition, that paragraph 27 of the affidavit in Reply makes allegations that are both scandalous and oppressive, referencing Court proceedings and conduct that are unrelated and irrelevant to the application before the Court. That such matters are inadmissible and may be struck out to prevent abuse and misdirection in Court. R14 5.11 It was also submitted that the Court has inherent jurisdiction, independent of statutory provisions, to control the contents of affidavits and to prevent abuse of the process. Reference was had to the case of Access Bank Zambia Ltd. v. Attorney General3 and Savenda Management Services Limited v. Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited6 where the Court's inherent powers were , reaffirmed as vital in maintaining the integrity of proceedings and ensuring adherence to procedural rules. That the Court's authority includes striking out inadmissible material and preventing prolix, scandalous, or oppressive affidavits from tainting judicial proceedings. 5.12 It was further emphasized that the rules and practice in this jurisdiction are aligned with those of Commonwealth countries, where strict adherence to procedural and evidential standards in affidavits is maintained. The case of Doujin Zhuang, Wang Qinghai and Kingphar Company Zambia Limited v. Bumu General Trading FZE4, cited for persuasion, underscores that affidavits should not contain new evidence. RlS 6.0 ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION 6.1 It was submitted in opposition that, based on the Order of this Honourable Court dated 23rd October 2023, the Applicant is legally entitled to respond to, explain, or clarify all the issues raised in the Intended 2nd Respondent's Affidavit in Opposition. That all of Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 24 of the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply specifically respond and relate to the issues raised in paragraphs 3, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the 2nd Intended Respondent's Affidavit in Opposition. It was further submitted that all Exhibits produced as "KP la" to "KP8" in the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply substantiate the Applicant's assertions in the said paragraphs, and no new issues have been introduced in these paragraphs in the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply. 6.2 It was submitted that when the 2nd Intended Respondent raised the issues appearing in paragraphs 3, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of his Affidavit in Opposition, he had the opportunity to explain and substantiate all the issues raised, and therefore cannot now complain of lack of opportunity after voluntarily raising them. It was submitted R16 that the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply, in the specified paragraphs, is consistent with the claim that the 2nd Intended Respondent will be affected by the outcome of the appeal proceedings and any Order this Honourable Court may issue. 6.3 It was submitted that the case of James Chanda Kasamanda v Attorney General1 does not apply because it concerned an Affidavit in Opposition to an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which introduced fresh or additional grounds of detention, unlike the present Affidavit in Reply that responds only to issues raised. It was submitted that the paragraphs in the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply relate to, and responds to the issues raised in the Intended Respondent's Affidavit in Opposition and 2 nd addresses the claim that the 2nd Intended Respondent will be affected by the outcome of the appeal or any other order this Court may make. 6.4 It was submitted that Order 41 Rule 5(1)(f) and (2) of the (RSC) provides that affidavits must contain only facts within the deponent's own knowledge, except 1n interlocutory proceedings where information or belief, with R17 source and grounds may be stated. It was submitted that the African Banking Corporation Zambia Limited (T / A Atlas Mara) v. Mattania Investment Limited (in Receivership) and 4 Others2 authority confirms that affidavits must not contain extraneous or irrelevant facts and that statements of belief must specify the source and basis. 6.5 It was submitted that the facts contained in the specified paragraphs of the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply are not extraneous but are relevant and respond to the issues raised in the 2nd Intended Respondent's Affidavit in Opposition, including the claim that he will be affected by the appeal proceedings or any other court order. 6.6 It was submitted that no law prevents a party from conducting inquiries to respond to issues raised in an affidavit, and the Applicant was legally entitled to make necessary inquiries to ensure accurate and essential information was provided to this Court. 6.7 It was submitted that the arguments cited by the 2nd Intended Respondent concerning the introduction of evidence relate to the main appeal and not to the present R18 . ; application, which concerns joining the 2nd Intended Respondent based on evidence produced in response to issues he raised. 6.8 It was submitted that the 2nd Intended Respondent's assertion that certain paragraphs of the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply (14 to 18) do not show personal knowledge is incorrect, as these paragraphs, when read with paragraphs 13, 19, and 20, demonstrate personal knowledge of facts concerning his alleged selection and installation as Senior Chief Muchinda, which is challenged in the appeal. 6.9 It was submitted that even to the extent that those paragraphs rely on information, the Applicant has adequately stated the source and facts farming the basis for those statements, corroborated by other assertions in the Affidavit, including a declaration of belief that the contents are true to the best of his knowledge. 6 .10 It was submitted that, if the Applicant were orally testifying at trial, he would be competent to narrate and prove the facts contained in the specified paragraphs of the Affidavit R19 in Reply and would be entitled to produce and refer to all supporting documents. 6.11 It was submitted that the 2nd Intended Respondent's Affidavit in Support of the Notice of Motion to Raise Preliminary Issues, notably paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14, relies solely on information from his advocates and does not state facts forming the basis of the grounds of belief as required by Order 41 Rule 5 of the RSC. 6.12 It was submitted that these paragraphs contain extraneous matters in the form of legal arguments which the 2nd Intended Respondent cannot personally prove if orally testifying during trial, and that such paragraphs have been expunged in analogous cases, including the African Banking Corporation2 case cited and Philip Mutantika and Another v Kenneth Chipungu5 • 6.13 It was submitted that the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction, as supported by cases such as Savenda Management Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited and Another6 and Milingo Lungu v Attorney General and Another7 to determine the matters raised by , R20 ,_ u • such paragraphs without requiring a formal application, so as to avoid undue delay and multiplicity of hearings. 6 .14 It was submitted that the Court frowns upon the practice of raising preliminary issues which tend to unnecessarily delay proceedings, and that litigants should incorporate all preliminary issues in their affidavits and skeleton arguments to minimize multiple hearings. 6.15 It was finally submitted that all specified paragraphs of the Applicant's Affidavit in Reply respond directly to the issues raised by the 2nd Intended Respondent, and that the 2nd Intended Respondent had ample opportunity to substantiate his claims, but failed to do so. That the Applicant's facts are legally sufficient and within his knowledge or properly based on information, while the 2nd Intended Respondent's reliance on advocate's advice renders parts of his affidavit inadmissible. 6.16 Therefore, it was prayed that the 2nd Intended Respondent's Notice of Motion to Raise Preliminary Issues be dismissed with costs to the Applicant. R21 f. \I t' 7.0 HEARING 7.1 At the hearing, Mr. Mwandila, submitting on behalf of the Applicant, relied on the affidavit and Skeleton Arguments filed on 26th December 2023 in support of the application. He further requested that paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 24 be expunged from the 2nd Intended Respondent's affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition to the joinder of the Second Intended Respondent. 7.2 In opposition, Mr. Siachitema relied on the affidavit in opposition and the Skeleton Arguments in opposition filed on 12th February, 2024. He prayed that the application be dismissed for lack of merit. 7.3 In Reply, Mr. Mwenya adopted the submissions by Mr. Mwandira Mr. Mwenya referred to paragraphs 3.11 to 3.19 of the Applicant's Skeleton Arguments in support and argued that these paragraphs constituted an application from the Bar, which is contrary to the rules of this Court. R22 . , .., 8.0 ANALYSIS AND DECISION 8.1 The Court has carefully examined the Notice of Motion filed by the 2nd Intended Respondent seeking to expunge paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 24 from the Applicant's affidavit in Reply on the basis that these paragraphs allegedly raise new issues not contained in the affidavit in opposition, and contain extraneous, scandalous, irrelevant, or oppressive matters prejudicial to the 2nd Intended Respondent. 8.2 The fundamental principle governing affidavits in interlocutory applications, as echoed in James Chanda Kasamanda v. Attorney General1 and African Banking Corporation Zambia Ltd. v. Mattaniah Investments Limited2 is that affidavits in Reply must be confined , strictly to responding to issues raised in the affidavit in opposition and must not introduce new grounds or fresh evidence. This principle ensures fairness by preventing prejudice to the opposing party, who otherwise would not have an opportunity to respond to newly introduced matters. This principle is also reflected in Order 41, Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Order 7 Rules 1 R23 t .. ' and 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, which empower the court to expunge scandalous, irrelevant, or otherwise oppressive material. 8.3 The 2nd Intended Respondent contends that paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 of the Applicant's affidavit in Reply introduce fresh issues and extraneous allegations to which the Respondent would have no opportunity to reply, thus prejudicing his right to a fair hearing. 8.4 This position finds support in the guidance that affidavits should only contain facts within the deponent's personal knowledge or statements of belief with credible sources and should avoid introducing arguments or new claims after the opposition affidavit stage. 8.5 On this proposition I am fortified by the provision under Order 41 Rule 5 Rules of the Supreme Court of England. 8.6 On the other hand, the Applicant argues that the said paragraphs do not raise new issues but are legitimate responses to isues explicitly raised in corresponding paragraphs of the 2nd Intended Respondent's affidavit in opposition, specifically pointing to paragraphs 1n R24 \ I> • opposition that are clearly echoed or answered in the affidavit in Reply. The Applicant further submits that he is entitled to make inquiries and produce evidence in reply to matters raised, referencing Savenda Management Services Limited. v. Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited6 on inherent jurisdiction to control affidavit content and uphold procedural fairness. 8. 7 On close scrutiny: Paragraph 13 in the affidavit in Reply directly responds to paragraph 15 1n opposition. Paragraph 18 in the affidavit in Reply addresses paragraph 22 in opposition. Thus, paragraphs 13 and 18 serve as legitimate replies, not new issues. 8.8 However, paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 clearly introduce new allegations or investigations not raised in the affidavit in opposition or strenuous issues. This inclusion violates the principle that affidavits in Reply must not introduce fresh matters, as that would deprive the 2nd Intended Respondent of an opportunity to respond. This is consistent with the reasoning in James Chanda Kasamanda 1 where the court cautioned against introducing new grounds 1n R25 J ) " interlocutory affidavits, and is reinforced by African Banking Corporation Zambia Limited1 which underscores strict adherence to procedural standards in affidavits. 8. 9 The Court's inherent jurisdiction to control the use of affidavits, permits expunging such paragraphs to prevent abuse and prejudice. The Applicant's reliance on counsel advice or attempts to justify these paragraphs as responses to issues not sufficiently particularised in the opposition affidavit does not override the clear procedural rule forbidding new material in reply. 8.10 In view of the above, the Court holds that paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 of the Applicant's affidavit in Reply raise new issues or contain extraneous, irrelevant, or oppressive material prejudicial to the 2nd Intended Respondent, and must be expunged. Paragraphs 13 and 18 legitimately respond to paragraphs 15 and 22 of the affidavit in opposition, respectively, and shall therefore remain. R26 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The Notice of Motion filed by the 2nlntended Respondent is granted to the extent indicated, and the identified paragraphs, except 13 and 18, are hereb y expunged from the Applicant's affidavit in Reply. 9.2 I make no order as to costs. 10.0 A date for hearing of the joinder application will be issued by the Court. DATED AT LUSAKA THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 ~ ................. .................. . Hon. Mrs. Justice A. M. Banda-Bobo COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE R27